Futaba 9Z vs JR 10X

When I purchased a used 40% Giles 300, I had the option to purchase it with or without the existing JR receivers. The previous owner offered to download his program into a 10X transmitter if I opted to buy it with the JR receivers. If I bought it without the receivers, and installed Futaba to mate with my 9Z transmitter, I would have to start from scratch as far as the setup, mixing, and dynamic trimming.

The advantages of buying a 10X only transmitter, downloading his data, and flying the same day it was delivered to me was attractive. However, I would now have both JR and Futaba transmitters, and switching back and forth between them goes against my Keep It Simple approach. Well, he made it more attractive when he said I could buy a new 10X, and if I decided not to stay with the JR 10X transmitter, he would buy the new 10X radio from me, as well as take the two JR receivers back and give me credit.

Ok, the decision was easy now. I could fly the Giles with the 10X for the rest of the season. If I didn’t like the 10X, I could sell the 10X to him, switch the plane over to Futaba during the off season, and I was no worse for wear. It also gave me a real good chance to really evaluate ‘hands on’ the differences and advantages between the two top of the line radios. So, I called Don’s Hobby shop, and a new 10X was delivered to my door two days before I was to take delivery of the Giles 300.

I arrived at the field the morning I was to take delivery of the Giles. Steve and I huddled together and transferred his program data to my new 10X. After a range check, and verification and all functions and controls worked properly, I was airborne. After a few flights, I headed home with plane and transmitter in tow. I was a happy camper.

Ok, on to the real reason for this page. What are my thoughts between the 9Z and the 10X, and did I stick with the 9Z or switch, and why.

First off, let me say these are both world class radios. I would he happy owning either one, and in fact, I wish I could just keep them both. However, I truly feel that one should stick with one system, to keep consistency in the switch layout and feel of the radios. I feel it makes using the transmitter transparent between planes, and lessens the chances of hitting the wrong switch at an inopportune time. The Keep it Simple approach. Ok, on to the nitty gritty. Here is a compilation of responses to various notes, e-mails, and questions people have asked me regarding the two radios.

————————————————————————————————–

Some quick notes that I found while using both the 9ZwcII and the 10X each for at least a full season.

- Both handled ALL my needs easily, include lots of mixing and custom program setups. Some of the setups I used to test each radio were very complex, which allowed me to see what limitations I would run into.

- Both easily adapted to my personal preference in switch layout and assignments, including some complex programming. For example, I had a switch which was triple mixed as a switch for on/off, with an offset based on the throttle position,  the offset was variable by a knob, and the same channel was shared by a smoke system, glitch detector, and ignition kill switch. Both radios handled this very well, which says a lot about the versatility of the mixers and functions.

- I found the 9Z fairly easy to program once you got used to it. There were times when I scratched my head for awhile, but I always figured out more than one way to accomplish the task at hand. While I had to use the manual at first, and still do at times, its not that hard to program. However, because of the greater flexibility available in the 9Z, there are more steps involved in setting up various features, even simple ones. This also  means there are more ways to foul up the programming. With the 10X, the setup is easier, but some of the flexibility is gone. The flexibility that is missing in the 10X over the 9Z is stuff most users would never need IMO, from sport pilots to full bore competitors. Even with the JR, I had to spend time reading the manual, and referring to it often in the beginning. However, it is easier to program all the common and most often used functions, but gets as complicated at the 9Z when you get into the more advanced less often used functions.

- The 9Z also has far more features than the 10X. Not the least is the software to fly airplanes, helicopters, and sailplanes all in one box. The 9Z offers more built in functions, however those functions can also be setup in a mix on the 10X. After I bought the 10X, I took the 9Z and 10X and sat down. I went through each and every 9Z function, and compared it to the 10x functions. Where there wasn’t a function on one of the other, I checked to see if I could build one in a mix. I walked away with the feeling that the 9Z has more functions listed, yet the 10X could perform every single one in a mixer if ever needed. Since the 10X also has all the standard functions available, it’s unlikely that most people would run into any issues, or run out of mixers. Even if you used mixing for elevons, flapperons, knife edge mix, throttle curves, aileron differential, throttle cut off, smoke system mixing to throttle, glitch detector setup, ignition cut off, etc, you would still have plenty of mixes left on either radio (with the above on my Edge 540T, I still have 5 mixers left on the 10X, and 4 left on the 9Z). I would think that one would be hard pressed to max out mixing on either radio.

- The Futaba only offers 8 channels, and a 9th channel that acts as an on/off switch. On my more demanding airplanes, this proves to be a drawback. Only having 8 channels requires me to do some complex programming and mixing to get all the functions on those channels (i.e., dual or quad servos on a control surface, smoke, kill switches, etc). With the extra headroom of the 2 channels on the 10X, I can setup the planes in a much cleaner fashion, even though the 10X is also capable of supporting the more complex solution using only 8 channels. This would be a benefit in the future if my needs require even more complex setups, with more channels required.

- Everyday tasks on the 10X were quicker and more intuitive on the 10X, while the 9Z was more complicated and time consuming to accommodate its greater flexibility. Its a trade off that doesn’t make sense for many people. I.e., normal everyday life is cluttered to support features or functions that 99% of the people never use, rather than normal everyday life easy and simple with less often used tasks more complicated. The 10X programmers decided to take the approach and simplify the tasks that pilots users day in and day out, at the expense of making the less used features a bit more complicated. This is why you hear the JR users say the 10X is so much easier. Its not because it has less features, but the every day stuff is streamlined and easy to get to.

For example, knife edge mixing. On the 10X, you go to the Rudder-Ail/Elev function. Everything is there to adjust the pitch and roll coupling for knife edge mixing in all flight modes or rates. On the 9ZWCII, you need to use a built in function for the Rudder to Ailerons, then create a custom mixer for the rudder to elevator. Its broken across a function and a custom mixer.

Its the same with setting up dual rates, where the 9Z requires you to setup the ATV for the servo travels, then set the AFR for high rates, then D/R for the low end. Further, the Ailerons are on one screen, the Elevators on another, and the Rudder on yet one more. So, you have three functions to deal with, and 6 pages of data screens. On the 10X, its all streamlined into one function, with a page for each control where the high, mid, and low rates can be set. Half the screens, with less then half the data entry. Further, the 10X has triple rates all packed into these screens. If you want triple rates on the 9Z, you need to enable conditions which requires a lot more setup and data entry which further complicates things. With the 10X, changing or fine tuning your triple rates after the initial setup is as easy as accessing one function and rotating through three screens, one for ail, elev, and rudder. On the 9Z, the use of a condition for getting that third rate makes changes much more complicated and time consuming overall.

-The display on the 10X is far easier to read. On the 9Z, some important items are small and hard to read. For example, on the 9Z, the model name and condition in use is at the very top of the display and very small. Not a big deal in itself. However, the shadow due to recessed LCD runs across the top lines, and makes it hard to check without some effort. Its something that could easily be missed if you are not careful. Further, when you wear sunglasses that are polarized, you may need to turn the transmitter 90 degrees to read the display. Neither of these are an issue on the 10X. Both somewhat minor points on the 9Z, but ones I’ve found annoying over time, since they are noticed on each and every flight (except when I fly at night . The problem with polarized sunglasses was a big one for me. Turning the transmitter sideways while flying to read the display isn’t my idea of user friendliness.

- The menu system on the 9Z is nicely done. While it may seem complex for someone coming from the lower end Futaba radios, or even JR, its not. While the JR may use Travel or the shortcut Code 12, the Futaba uses ATV for adjustable travel. Both the same function, and work in the same way, just labeled differently. Neither is hard to find or setup. Just different. The menu system on the 10x is also nicely done, with immediate access to each function, just as the 9Z. Both implemented differently, both easy to find and use. Just different.

- The balance of the Futaba is better. When you use a neck strap, you can actually let go of the radio, and for the most part, it will stay level. If you do that on the JR, it flops down. Granted, I usually don’t let go, but have on many occasions to wipe either sweat or gas/oil from my hands. When I started using the JR, the first couple times were exciting. Now, I always hold it with one had, and wipe the other, then switch.

- The battery consumption on the 10X is considerably less than the 9Z. While I need to recharge the 9Z after each day of flying, sometimes mid day if I fly a lot, I can go two or three days on the 10X.

- Both offer conditions or flight modes, which are excellent features. Even with flying large aerobatic planes, with lots of mixing, dual rates, expo, as well as extreme rates setup for 3D aerobatic, I find I only need two or three flight modes. While the 9Z can change almost any programming item, the 10x has a more limited set. However, there is nothing that I can foresee needing that the 9Z and 10x doesn’t offer, even on complex setups. The 10X offers 5 flight modes which is far more than needed for the most part. The 9Z offers more, but I found managing the conditions tedious, and at times frustrating, especially when you start using the Campac for backup. How many people will really use more than a couple flight modes? Everyone I have met either uses dual or triple rates and no flight modes, or two or three flight modes at most. There was one pilot I met that used 4 flight modes.

-I like the way JR approached the modes, or conditions. They decided that 5 modes were enough for each model, and had them hard coded. I am not aware of what location they reside in, nor do I care. All I care about is how the parameters are set, and what switch is programmed to turn them on and off. With the 9Z, I need to be proactive in the housekeeping, yet it yields no real benefit. Sure, I can use any one of the condition memories, and even 10 conditions if I so choose. A blessing, or a  nightmare? I wish the 9Z also had these hard coded, rather than the existing setup, which is probably the most complicated item to setup. I, and a couple other pilots I know, have spent considerable time trying to figure out why a model can’t be deleted or changed, because we got vague error messages regarding condition usage. This is one of the things I also hear other pilots complaining about. Further, if you want to reset all the conditions and associated names, it requires a complete system reset, which requires that the radio be recalibrated. Ouch! Hopefully, Futaba will find a way to ease our pain in this regard.

- The range checks that I get with the 10X far exceed those I got with the 9Z. This was tested with the same plane, and the only thing I changed was the receiver and the transmitter. Both transmitters had their antennas extended to the same length, which was one segment. They were tested one day apart, as the same field and same location. But I should also say, I haven’t had any issues with either radio, even when going to vertical height records . Advantage or not, I don’t know for sure unless tested. While many say the transmitter link is better on the JR, and the range check seems to further indicate this, its not conclusive without actual testing. There are probably many differences between the two radios in the antenna down configuration used during range testing that could account for the difference in range check. Once in the normal antenna up configuration, the ranges could be identical.

- Futaba decided that cross trims were the wave of the future. Basically, to trim the throttle, you would use the trim lever normally associated with the elevator. And for elevator, you would use the throttle trim lever. While there is some merit to this setup, there is one flaw. I know of very few pilots that actually use this. Most are accustomed to normal trims, and are not willing to change. On the 9Z cross trims are set as the default, and the user must proactively change it on each and every model they setup. There is no way to set the default to be normal trims. I’ve heard more than one story of a user forgetting to make this change, with the expected results. Me included. I find it convenient to use the trims set normally, or as cross trims. I haven’t seen any real advantage either way, so to me its a moot point.

- On the 9Z, the throttle trim is digital. This makes it hard to kill the engine with the trim lever, as it takes a few seconds to adjust the trim down enough to kill the engine. To aid in a fast engine kill for safety reasons, I used the throttle cut function to enable a kill switch. Flip the switch, and the throttle trim is reduced to a user defined setting. Nice and quick. On the 10X, the throttle trim lever is a normal trim lever, and it can be used to quickly kill the engine as with most current radios in production. However, I also setup a kill switch on the 10X, since I was used to that arrangement and find it more convenient. On the 10X or the 9Z, the kill switch allows me to kill the engine, without ever adjusting the throttle trim settings. With gasoline motors, the throttle trim rarely if ever needs to be adjusted once set. The kill switch prevents me from changing the preset position which gives me a reliable idle. In the end, I find the normal trim lever never changes from its center position on the 10X since I also use a kill switch, and also use an idle up function to switch between high (aerobatic) or low (ground/landing/etc) idle settings. So I am indifferent regarding regular trims or digital trims.

My short recommendation would be this;
—————————————–
If you like simplicity, ease of programming, and won’t be flying helicopters, the 10X is a great radio. It will handle even the most complex planes you throw at it easily, from giant scale 42% aerobatic planes, to complex scale aircraft with lots of bells and whistles. Your day to day changes and programming issues are easily and quickly done without much thought. You would be giving up some functions, but 99% can be done in a custom mix without any fuss. You would also give up some flexibility with the switch layout however, but mostly in the ‘why would you want to do that anyway’ category. The 10X has all the normal bases covered, and dispensed with the ‘left field’ stuff..

If you want the ultimate in flexibility, and computers don’t intimidate you, the 9Z is a excellent radio. It will be harder to setup complex planes due to the channel limitations, but the flexibility of the radio will allow you to accomplish it. You will give up ease of use, but will counter that with a great amount of flexibility, even though you might need to stop, think, and scratch your head at times, even for normal day in and day out changes.

In my opinion, if you are a Futaba user, you can just upgrade to the 9Z, and JR users can upgrade to the 10X, and neither would be missing out on anything at the upper end. However, if you will be flying helicopters in the future, it might be worth looking into buying or switching to the 9Z. That said, for a JR user, it might also just be cheaper to purchase another JR transmitter for helicopters, rather than switch all your receivers and move over to Futaba.

The end result for me;
————————–
I really like the 9Z. I really like the 10X. Both are excellent radios. I find either easy to program now that I have used them both for a while. I like the additional features of the 9Z, even though I’ve never needed them, and don’t expect to in the future. The only real thing I can see that I might  miss, is the flexibility to setup any switch to any function. Other than that, and after extensive testing and thought, either radio with do 100% of what I want 100% of the time. The biggest drawback to the 9Z is the 8.5 channels, and that was what got me to put most of my large aerobatic planes and turbine jets on the 10X. I need the extra channels the 9Z lacks.

Just to put a some grounding to the above, it helps to know what and how I fly my airplanes so that my comments can be tempered and put into context. I mostly fly giant scale IMAC type aerobatic airplanes in the 35% to 40% size range. I am mostly a 3D type flier, but mix my flights with precision IMAC type maneuvers. I’ve recently ventured into turbine powered sport and scale jets, which places high demands on the transmitters for mixers, functions, and most importantly  channels.

~ by sfaust on December 6, 2005.