Review: Frsky R9 Slim Receiver For Long Range

by Oscar
Published: Last Updated on

The FrSky’s R9 receiver is designed to work with the Frsky R9M long range module, however it was just a bit too big for mini quads. Therefore Frsky made a smaller version, the R9 Slim, which we will check out in this review.

You can get R9 Slim from HorusRC. This review is written by Artur Banach.

How to setup R9M module in the Taranis and Betaflight?

Features of R9 Slim Receiver

  • Designed for the Frsky R9M Long Range TX module
  • Much smaller than the original R9 Receiver
  • Two frequency available: 868MHZ for EU, 900MHZ for non-EU
  • Redundancy function
  • Supports SmartPort Telemetry
  • Dedicated RSSI Output
  • Theoretical Range: 10Km+

The R9 Slim RX has two JST connectors:

  • 6 pin, on top, for SBUS and voltage in
  • 8 pin, at the bottom, for servo channels

Wire harnesses come with the receiver.

From the pinout diagram, we can see that there is a SBUS_IN pin for connecting second receiver for redundancy, as well as a dedicated pin for RSSI output.

R9 Slim comes with dipole antenna with u.fl connector.

Antenna active element has 82mm of length. Receiver and transmitter antennas are meant to be set to vertical orientation for maximum performance according to FrSky,

Configurations and Options

When shopping for the R9 Slim receiver, you have to choose one of the two versions on the product page:

  • EU LBT (Europe) 868mhz
  • FCC (International) 916mhz

Or you can flash the firmware to get it working in the frequency you want (firmware available on FrSky’s website).

The power options for the EU LBT firmware are:

  • 25mW (8 channels with telemetry or 16 channels without telemetry)
  • 500mw (16 channels without telemetry)

FCC power settings (all with 16 channels with telemetry):

  • 10mW
  • 100mW
  • 500mW
  • 1000mW

Notice that the EU LBT version is more limited compared to FCC. According to FrSky that’s because of the harder restrictions of EU regulation regarding radio transmission power.

You need to bind your receiver again every time you change transmitting power or mode.

There is however a bug in OpenTX when using EU LBT. Before selecting 25mW mode with telemetry you have to switch the R9M to FCC and check the option “Module telemetry”. Once that’s done you can switch R9M back to EU LBT and bind with the 25mW mode.

I have some tips about long range flying you might find useful.

R9 & R9 Slim vs. Crossfire Micro & Nano RX

Here is a comparison table between the different popular long range receivers for their sizes, prices, and features.

Further Reading: How to setup Crossfire in Betaflight?

R9 Slim R9 Crossfire Micro V2 Crossfire Nano
Price (Feb 2018) $25 $50 $45 $40
Size (mm) 30 x 14 x 5 43 x 27 x 14 40 x 14 x 9 11 x 18
Weight 3.2g 15.8g 3.3g 0.5g
Voltage 3.5-10V 3.5-10V 5V 5V
Current [email protected] [email protected] N/A N/A
SBUS ? Yes Yes CRSF / SBUS CRSF / SBUS
Smart Port Telemetry ? Yes Yes Yes Yes

The R9 Slim receiver is a bit shorter than Crossfire Micro RX V2 and much smaller than R9. (Sorry I couldn’t show a comparison between the R9 and R9 Slim as I’ve broken the R9 receiver)

Performance

I have been testing R9 Slim receiver for about 6 weeks. Receiver was being regularly flashed with latest firmware available to keep it up to date.

My testing setup:

I soldered the RSSI wire on the receiver to the Matek RSSI pad to get RSSI displayed in OSD regardless of whether I have telemetry or not. I only tested the EU LBT firmware because I’m in Europe.

I flew the quad in a big open field with few patches of bushes and some trees. The field is about 1km long and 800m wide.

I tested both power settings:

  • 25mW with telemetry
  • 500mW with no-telemetry

In both power settings, I flew 1km out and there was no signal dropouts, although RSSI value was jumping between 60 and 98 constantly while I was at the end of the field. There was no failsafe or any noticeable issues with the radio link, even when I was flying behind trees at distance. Latency level feels similar to the Crossfire, I didn’t notice the difference personally.

Good things about R9 Slim

  • Small form factor – suitable for mini quads
  • Affordable option at only $25
  • Good selection of power settings with telemetry in the FCC version
  • The dipole antenna is easier to attach on a mini quad compared to the R9 receiver
  • RSSI out pin for convenience

Things to improve

  • Inconsistent RSSI readings hopping during the flight. Could be a firmware related, but this definitely needs FrSky attention
  • Poor selection of power settings for EU LBT version. Only 25mW with telemetry. R9 Slim FCC version feels like a better version of the same product
  • Telemetry only shows RSSI and Receiver Voltage Input sensors
  • It would be nice to allow frequency selection in the setting without flashing the firmware, like in the Crossfire. But it’s not that a big deal since most of us don’t travel around the world with our models

Conclusion

It’s great to see there is a smaller FrSky receiver dedicated for R9M long range module for mini quads. It performed well in my tests but there is certainly room for improvement, especially regarding RSSI value and power options for the EU LBT version.

Leave a Comment

By using this form, you agree with the storage and handling of your data by this website. Note that all comments are held for moderation before appearing.

35 comments

Goran 22nd August 2020 - 10:11 am

Hi
How do I connect frsky s-port sensors to slim+ OTA rx? Is it inverted or un-inverted pin?
Thks
Goran

Reply
Joseph Maiellano 20th June 2020 - 5:58 am

Hey oscar i read all of your stuff and support you! Im having issues with my slim+ 2019 module with rssi. It jumps all over the place and never at 99% its almost like the scale is reversed and the lower the better signal its strange. Im needing help setting up rssi on a iflight cinebe4k. Everything is there it was fine but now the rssi reads at 21% when i start up. Id appreciate help !

Reply
Jay Jones 5th March 2019 - 2:02 pm

Hi Oscar,

when flashing a EU-LBT R9M and a EU-LBT R9 Slim with the FCC firmware, do I need to exchange the antennas to a 900Mhz version as well? My assumption is that the antennas are tuned to 868Mhz – but does that make a big difference?

Thank you and best regards,
Jay

Reply
Oscar 11th March 2019 - 4:13 pm

Yes, you do need to change the antennas as well for optimal performance. Antennas are tuned either to 915MHz or 868MHz.

Reply
Nah 20th February 2019 - 5:40 pm

FCC might seem like a better deal, but EU uses 868mhz because 900mhz is crowded by the phones. The new flex firmware, I believe, has adaptive power up to 1w and telemetry on all the power levels on the EU devices also, so the firmware updates are making these articles obsolete fast.

Reply
Trevor Crouch 15th January 2019 - 5:20 pm

Hi Oscar – I have the Xlite and its an FCC version (I believe). Can I use the R9m lite & R9mm both in LBT or would there be a conflict somewhere?
TIA

Reply
Oscar 22nd January 2019 - 4:00 pm

It should work.
But you should really try to match the firmware on them.

Reply
Pedro Sombreireiro 10th January 2019 - 3:55 pm

Hey there. So I’m just starting on the FPV game. Actually starting is an overstatement. I just bought my Taranis X9D Plus Special Edition that came with an R9M module. I wasn’t going to but it was on sale and just pulled the plug.

So right now, I’m kind of lost ( due to being so noob on this ) … So, right now, I need to get a specific transmitter module for the R9 right? My guess is that FrSky R9 Mini 900MHz Long Range Receiver is the only good solution for a compact module?

Reply
manolo 16th September 2018 - 6:35 pm

¿ en que canal saca rssi ?

Reply
bobby 13th August 2018 - 6:21 pm

frsky can propably only satisfy eu law with lower power settings. we should ask them about an ham firmware for the transmitter module so they can legally provide all power and telemetry modes on 868 mhz.

Reply
Pete 3rd August 2018 - 8:17 am

Hi bit of a noob question are the fcc and eu r9m modules the same ? Is it just a case of a firmware update if I have an e17 module and want to use the fc features

Reply
Oscar 6th August 2018 - 6:19 pm

The different firmware operates at different frequency.
Yea you can switch between FCC/EU by flashing the firmware.

Reply
Christopher 4th July 2018 - 8:57 pm

what do i need to do to get PWM output to work on my R9Slim FCC version? the binding method for SBUS does not do the trick, i have completely removed the sbus plug and wired up using the PWM’s

Reply
David Rogers 3rd July 2018 - 5:30 am

Oscar, does it matter when placing the antenna in the L position which antenna is vertical? The clear or the black coated?

Reply
Oscar 7th July 2018 - 4:52 pm

that doesn’t matter

Reply
Oscar 24th July 2018 - 5:40 pm

I asked Frsky staff, and he said it doesn’t matter.

Reply
Patrick 29th June 2018 - 3:52 pm

A comment mentioned L is the optimal antenna shape. That’s not just totally wrong, but also dangerous. A dipole antenna, like the R9 system is using has a quarter wavelength on TX and RX antenna, which has to “hit” the antenna in a straight line (T shape) to get full resonance and signal strength.

Reply
Pavan 26th July 2018 - 5:18 pm

Hi, By T shape you mean 180 degrees apart ? Should it be placed horizontal or vertical to the ground? Thanks

Reply
Chuck Gillespie 22nd June 2018 - 12:48 pm

Oscar, Have you had a chance to compare the FRSky R9 Mini to the Crossfire. It is much less expensive.

Reply
David 6th June 2018 - 8:27 am

Telemetry only shows RSSI and Receiver Voltage Input sensors?
is this still true? can not show like gps, amp draw, flight mode with iNav?
How about the r9 mini, is it the same? no gps telemetry info?

Reply
Ricardo Maroquio 17th August 2018 - 6:36 pm

You have telemetry parameters if your source can transmit in S-Port or if you use a special cable that converts MavLink to S-Port.

Reply
CARLOS GRIJUELA 3rd June 2018 - 9:14 am

Oscar…please only one question
in frsky x9 slim how you instalation de dioole antenna? in T possition or in L or 90°..I dont know how put this model of antenna..

I have de r9m module and I I’ve noticed some cut in 1w self adaptive model in FCC model … maybe it’s the antenna or the receiver’s consumption.?

Reply
Oscar 5th June 2018 - 2:48 pm

L is the optimal position, you get some signal lost with T position (acceptable level), but some people prefer that because it’s easier to mount.

Reply
Torsen 25th May 2018 - 9:15 am

Hello
Can you speak german ? My english ist Bad !
I have the r9slim and a Problem
Please answere me

Reply
noah hansen 3rd May 2018 - 4:46 am

Are you able to get an un-inverted smart port signal by soldering to some pin on this board? or can you only get the regular inverted smart port signal from the JST connector?

Reply
Javier 26th May 2018 - 6:35 pm

I do also have this question it would be good to know from where to get the un-inverted S.Port or another way to get Telemetry on BF for F4 boards with this R9Slim receiver?

Reply
Mete 27th April 2018 - 9:54 am

How did you place the antenna on the miniquad? Thanks!

Reply
Badr 18th April 2018 - 10:04 pm

is there a way to have RSSI displayed in the osd without soldering ? like we actually do with a regular xm+?
Also, is the R9M able to switch as well between EU version and fcc?

Thanks.

Reply
james 4th July 2018 - 6:53 am

yes im pretty sure it can be switched with firmware update

Reply
pizzy 2nd April 2018 - 5:09 pm

maybe trappy will lower his prices now or don’t, guess I don’t really care since I have 5 slim9s now.

Reply
Radim Sha 24th March 2018 - 11:18 pm

Can you buy EU version and flash it to non-EU? Is it same hardware?

Reply
Oscar 1st April 2018 - 12:39 am

Yes you can. Same hardware just different firmware.

Reply
Erwin 16th June 2018 - 11:08 am

So you just flash EU hardware with fcc software and your done?

Reply
Enrico 13th March 2018 - 3:28 pm

finally the first review available for this receiver after so long!
thank you!!
Question:
you soldered RSSI pin directly to the FC. I was thinking this method never worked accurately as in some case you need to install resistors (this is what i’ve being told when i did the same with a FrSky receiver).
Are you sure that the rssi fluctuations were not due to voltage spikes, noise or even voltage range issue related to this type of connection?

i really would like to upgrade to a more robust connection from my actual XSR but investing so much money in the TBS system seems to me crazy although the new nano receiver is now pushing the boundary again.

Reply
Artur Banach 13th March 2018 - 6:23 pm

It took a while before I gathered conclusions. I have soldered RSSI directly to Matek F405-CTR because this was I could see RSSI on 500mW Non-telemetry mode. If it’s causing issues than it’s another point they could make an improvement on

Reply