Brushless Speed Controllers Comparison
update from April 2005
During our last review. Castle Creations won 1st place
and JETI/HAKCER 2nd. This was done in January 2005. Let's now update this
article, with the latest hardware available.
JETI put on the market the JETI ADVANCED Plus series with a new programmer
while Castle Creations proposed a software update to their line of Brushless ESC
CatleCreations Phoenix 35
ESC JETI Advanced
What a good idea to build a programmer, with
everything written on it, so you don't have to
remember all the parameters, or carry with you all
the user manuals each time you go to the field.
Let's see if this device delivers well and his
advantages and disadvantages
Very clear and easy to use
Can't make a mistake when programming
Offers the flexibility to modify the program of the ESC, on
the field, easily
Fragile, if not protected, the external parts could be
Would like to have more options for the motor setup
3 timing options instead of 2
Possibility to reverse the motor, by programming
Should be sold with a protective box.
If you don't bring this programmer with you, you can't
program many options from the ESC.
||JETI Advanced Plus
Low-voltage cutoff - 4V, 5V, 6V, 7.2V, 9V, 12V
Over-current Protection - 5 settings
Type - 5 settings
Throttle Range - fixed/self-adjusting/governor
Advance - 3 choices
Type - hard or soft
Switching Frequency - 3 choices
|The Programming Card for all the Advance PLUS
1-1/2 x 1-1/2 x 1/16" card with jumper connectors programs all of the
Advance PLUS controllers in 6 different ways:
- Accept Nicads or NiMh or Lithium cells;
- Set a High or Low motor cutoff voltage;
- Set a Hard cutoff or a gradual slowdown;
- Set Brake or No Brake;
- Set Timing for Regular Brushless motors or for Outrunner motors;
- Set Throttle response either Linear or Logarithmic.
If you do NOT use the Program Card, then the Advance PLUS Controllers
can only be programmed as the Jeti Advance Controllers were: Brake On or
Off, Hard (Outrunner) Timing or Soft timing.
- Battery Eliminator Circuit (BEC): eliminates receiver battery
- Safe "Power On"
- Low torque "Soft Start": protects gear boxes and belt drives
- Simple setup: no complicated switches or wiring
- Tough surface mount construction
- Smooth reverse exponential throttle
- Audible Arming Signal
- Self-calibrating endpoints: maximizes usable stick travel
- Auto Motor cut-off with reset
- Auto shut-down when signal is lost
- Microprocessor Controlled
Phoenix-35 User Manual (PDF) for more details.
- Very smooth throttle response
- Better operation with OUTRUNNER motors than the Castle creation
one (tested on AXI 2820/10)
- Automatic motor cutoff with automatic detection of the number
and the type of battery cells
- Safety cutoff when using Lithium batteries that prevents
accidental destruction of the Lithium battery due to over discharge
- High frequency brake with non linear hard or limited braking
- Automatic self-calibrating when you turn on your transmitter
- Automatic motor cutoff when battery voltage is low
8 kHz switching rate.
- Large set of parameters which you can modify
- ESC upgradeable via PC USB or Manually, using the TX
- Excellent customer services
- Ezone Representation
- Can easily be used on Boats, Helicopters, cars, or planes
- Extremely smooth control of All motors, including the Out
- Medium amount of parameters which can be modified
- Excellent Customer Services
- On/Off switch
- Problems on Out runners Motors, on Startup
- No On/Off switch
- No Ezone Representation
- The Hardware programmer could be hurt, if not protected
- If need to upgrade, then need to send back the ESC back to the
between the 2 TOP ESC BEC: JETI and Castle Creations
The New JETI ESC and Programmer do add a significant progress in
the line of their ESC. Also, it is important to note that JETI is still the
better one, when it comes to controlling motor and keeping it smooth. On the
other hand, Castle Creations offers more flexibility, and ease of programming.
Now, what to choose ?
Unless you need the specific ability of the Castle Creations,
then JETI showed more easiness in controlling most motors.
Tests just showed that the JETI controller works smoother that
the Castle Creations when it comes to controlling different motors, including
the AXI. JETI never failed me during tests while Castle Creations did. It is
also VERY simple to program via the Hardware programmer (just please, sell a box
to carry it)
Be aware of the following:
ONLY Castle Creations (CC) Offers the flexibility of upgrading
the software, of the ESC, via a PC. This is a positive point for CC BUT, some
people would object to this that companies do this feature, when they sell
products, which are not perfect, and they assume they will need updates, to
cover future discovered Bugs.
On the other hand, and as an example, it was very handy to have this feature
when the lipoly upgrade came to the market.
ONLY CC provides so much variety in the programming functions.
Jeti arguments the following:
is not problem to wide possibility for 3 timings but all has to be simple for
customer as Advance controllers are for everybody
change – 99% of brushless motors are „iron“ type, it means 8 kHz is enough.
Set higher frequency it generates more heat and more interference
JETI does not allow the full modifications of the ESC
Parameters, if you don't have the Hardware programmer.
As a Fact, and personal experience, it happened to me and
few friends, to have deffective CC ESC, even sometime, during a flight, which
was NOT fun, while never heard anyone complaining about a JETI Bug, or
malfunction around. Of course, this is a matter of statistics, but it is a fact.
So it is really difficult to choose. Personally now, if I don't
need the special features of the CC, I would go for the JETI as my experience
showed them more reliable so far, and more compatible with the AXI motors
JETI Advanced 40 Plus
|Both deliver Excellent value, and the
pluses and minuses of each other make them difficult to separate. Especially
well done to JETI from getting 1 rank up, in the race !
To make it
very simple, I would say that JETI showed more reliability while CC showed
more versatility in programming options.
Monday, 20 June 2005