Some info for DX7 users.... (or future users)

I did some serious testing of the two different RXs that I have...  The AR6100 and the AR6200, and well let's just say that the 6200 will be the only RX of choice from here on.

Firstly... Both RXs are DSM2, so they will not work with the DX6 - Sorry to say!.  Secondly, the AR6100 is a single RX and the AR6200 has 2 RXs... one is on a small fly lead so that you can orientate it in the plane away from the main RX.

AR6100
The first thing I tested was to do a standard (as instructed in the manual) range test, using the Range Test Button on the back of the TX.  The AR6100 failed!  Yes, it failed the manual's range test.  The manual states that you should be able to get 30 paces or 90Feet - Well I could not make half that distance when the signal was lost. I tried two different RXs with the same result.  Also, if you are pointing the TX antenna directly at the aircraft, the signal is lost.  That being said, I have never lost an aircraft flying on an AR6100.  I have a couple of times had an aircraft so far away that I can barely make out if it is up or down, and the AR6100 never missed a beat.  But in saying this, these are small (800mm wingspan) aircraft.  I would not even think of putting one in something large that could get quiet a way away.   I did one other quick test which although would never happen at the field, it did yield interesting results.  The test was to have my aircraft inside my tin shed, and for me to take the TX outside the tin shed, and test both with full signal strength, and with the Range/Bind button.  The AR6100 again FAILED this test.  The RX was ok with me being outside the shed, but failed when I hit the Range/Bind button!

AR6200
The AR6200 is a two piece receiver.  It comes with a main (and slightly larger) RX, then a small fly lead runs out to another (slightly smaller) RX.  This, according to Spektrum gives a far better connection between TX and RX, and from the tests I did, although not scientific, I would agree.

I performed exactly the same tests with the AR6200, that I did on the AR6100, and the AR6200 came through with flying colours. (pardon the Pun)  The 30 paces 90feet test worked... in fact, I could not get further away as I would have had to climb my fence.  I also pointed the TX at the plane, but could not get it to drop signal, unlike the AR6100.  So then I moved onto the shed.  With the RX in the tin shed, and me outside, the plane responded perfectly with or without the Range/Bind button pushed.  I know you would probably never have your plane flying through a shed - unless of course you are into that sort of thing, but it did prove what Spektrum say about these RXs. The AR6100 is for small park flyers, and the AR6200 is a full range RX.

So, what would I recommend using the AR6100s for as apposed to the AR6200s... Well, I have one on my Thunder Tiger Expo 3D, and would use it on anything that is not going to get to far away.  Indoor use would be ideal, but any small slow flyer, or any of those 3D type aircraft that spend a lot time hovering and staying relatively close.  I would not use it on anything that is going to go fast, and will get a way off and a way up.  All of my serious aircraft will be flying the AR6200.  This way at least I will not have to worry about the range of the RX.

There are lots of pilots who have the AR6100s and have never had a problem.  So my advice would be to seek out some information for yourself.

Footnote: - The first version of the AR6100 had some serious issues.  If you are going to purcahse an AR6100, make sure it has the V1.2 Sticker on the side.

Have fun!

The Mongrel