Matronics Email Lists :: View topic - The great(?) debate . . .

Matronics Email Lists
Web Forum Interface to the Matronics Email Lists

Get Email Distribution Too! FAQ Search Memberlist Usergroups Register

Profile Log in to check your private messages Log in

The great(?) debate . . .
Goto page 1, 2 Next

Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> AeroElectric-List

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author Message

nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net
Guest

Posted: Fri Jul 18, 2008 2:30 pm Post subject: The great(?) debate . . .

Published works found:



A reader sent me a link to the MTF Industries

website.



One can only guess as to why Paul did not reference this

body of work that supports his and rebuts much of my

work.



I'll leave it up to readers here on the List to deduce

the value of what's published. Assuming that products

described ever become available, it will ultimately be

you folks who validate or debunk the ideas offered at:



http://smartaircraftsystems.com/



At first blush, this system seems to compete with



http://www.verticalpower.com/



This is for information only and not intended to start

a new thread. Before there are schematics and/or hardware

to evaluate, there's nothing worthy of our $time$ to

discuss at length.



        Bob . . .



        ----------------------------------------)

        ( . . .  a long habit of not thinking   )

        ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )

        ( appearance of being right . . .       )

        (                                       )

        (                  -Thomas Paine 1776-  )

        ----------------------------------------

rgf(at)dcn.davis.ca.us
Guest

Posted: Sat Jul 19, 2008 7:34 am Post subject: The great(?) debate . . .

Actually, I would much appreciate your thoughts on VerticalPower and its

concept.  If you've shared them before I'll search the archives....



Ralph Finch

RV-9A QB build



--

nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net
Guest

Posted: Sat Jul 19, 2008 2:41 pm Post subject: The great(?) debate . . .

At 08:28 AM 7/19/2008 -0700, you wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		  



Actually, I would much appreciate your thoughts on VerticalPower and its

concept.  If you've shared them before I'll search the archives....



Ralph Finch

RV-9A QB build


	


    Vertical Power . . . and competitors offer a high

    degree of integration for monitoring, automatic controls,

    display of parameters of interest, some degree of

    plug-n-play architecture and perhaps some computer

    driven features that can be accessed by the user. These

    might include check-lists and data gathering on some aspects

    of system performance.



    When compared with the breaker/fuse,-switch-wire-contactors

    approach common to most of GA light-planes, it's an entirely

    new world with design goals never considered until the

    technology and manufacturing evolved. Certainly there have

    been huge advancements in the capabilities we have to

    "go solid state" or "enhance pilot ability to exert

    a high degree of command and control with a reduced

    workload." And, of course, we'll see the words "safety"

    and "reliability" pop up in the advertisements as well.



    I'm not sure there is value in trying to compare $300 worth

    of wire, switches, fuses or breakers and the occasional

    contactor with these new kids on the block. For years

    I witnessed demonstrations at OSH by entrepreneurial

    hopefuls for controlling the airplane over serial busses

    "for the purpose of reducing wire weight."



    The first question that comes to mind is what degree of

    complexity has been added (along with vulnerabilities

    to RF and lightning) in order to take perhaps 2 pounds

    out of the empty weight of an RV? The earliest manifestations

    of this trend were not very exciting because the part

    counts went up. Further, maintenance spares were not the

    kinds of parts you can buy at Aircraft Spruce, Steinair or B&C.



    Over the years, the size and power of the proposed

    computers grew as prices for those computers and their

    design tools went down. Now we could begin to think

    about doing things that the $300 lot of hardware cited

    above cannot nor were ever intended to do. You can

    "program" these things to exercise some intelligence,

    display on LCD screens, take input from touch-screens, etc.



    Now you have an entirely different product. It's

    a flight management system that also happens to

    replace $300 worth of hardware. Lighter than the

    $300 system? Probably not. Sexier than the $300

    system, you betcha!



    The decision to incorporate this technology into

    your airplane goes WWAAaayyy beyond the thought

    processes we used to buy $300 worth of stuff

    from B&C. This is because the new idea can do much

    more than turn things on and off and keep wires from

    burning up if faulted.



    Now we find ourselves considering software driven

    fault detection and clearing, software driven

    on/off control, solid state switches replacing

    every toggle, entering and displaying checklists,

    recording clearances, etc. etc.



    It's like stepping up from a 6-cyl, stick-shift,

    chevy with nothing on it to a Lexus with everything

    on it. Both vehicles take fuel and time to get you

    from point A to point B. The differences to be

    considered now become very personal. Some pilots

    among you take some personal pride in designing,

    crafting, understanding, operating and maintaining

    the system built from $300 worth of parts. They

    also do not feel intimidated about the thought

    processes and actions necessary to deal with

    a malfunction of a component in that system.



    On the other hand, if the owner is especially

    fond of the notion of automating these processes

    and turning responsibility over to a suite of

    components that he doesn't understand and cannot

    service, then there are folks ready to offer systems

    that addresses that desire.



    The easiest targets for the latest-and-greatest

    are those who do not understand the $300 system

    and easily transition to not understanding

    the multi-killobuck system as well. Probably

    driven by some idea that if all the necessary

    things for operating the system are taken

    care of in software, then the owner/pilot need

    not be concerned with such matters.



    The decision to take advantage of highly

    integrated, bells-and-whistles products is more

    a matter of personal preferences than one of

    utility and especially safety. Your airplane

    isn't gong to fly any faster. It's not going to

    be any lighter. The volume of stuff behind the

    panel will be higher. And yes, one can be

    relieved of having to deal with the occasional

    but usually non-threatening failure of a

    component . . . assuming the $300 worth of stuff

    was crafted into a failure tolerant system.



    My personal preference is driven by my professional

    understanding of the components and architectures

    available to me. Toss in the admittedly dated

    "Mother! I want to do it myself!" attitude handed

    down to me by my predecessors. A sort of "The Right

    Stuff" approach to minimizing complexity where

    it fails to increase the efficiency of the machine

    or reduce cost of ownership. When I'm looking for

    the ultimate convenience of operation, speed,

    comfort, and lowest cost of ownership I buy

    a ticket on a big iron bird. If I owned an OBAM

    aircraft (or de-certified factory machine) it would

    not be for the purpose of elevating its function

    to level of a flying Lexus.



    My personal "dream machine" is a de-certified

    Pacer with Mogas STC. Strip out the back seats

    and put in cargo tie-down platform. Strip out

    electrical system and put Z13/8. Strip out

    that butt-busting bench seat and put in nice

    buckets out of an automobile. NOW, for a pittance

    in relative costs, a lot of labor, I have

    a product of my imagination, $time$ and

    talents that I'm willing to suffer in for nine

    hours of noise and bumps (NOT counting fuel

    stops) to the west coast.



    But be cautious of any notions that these

    systems are safer or more reliable. Electrical system

    malfunctions are very small contributors to

    expensive or life threatening accidents. Reliability

    has to be defined in terms whether any given failure

    is a maintenance or safety issue. Are you striving

    for never turning a wrench? Or perhaps maximizing the

    numbers of no-sweat arrivals? I personally have no

    problem with replacing the occasional inexpensive part

    in a failure tolerant system. That's why I would

    even choose to own an OBAM aircraft in the first

    place. I have no doubt that these do-everything

    products function as advertised. Return on investment

    will not be known until we have years of marketplace

    history.



    Those of you considering the make-or-buy decision,

    have to build you own case for $time$, design goals

    and the satisfaction of getting utility out of the

    best YOU know how to do in YOUR dream machine. A

    big chunk of that equation considers how much you're

    willing to learn and build as opposed to buying it.



    Bob . . .

Eric M. Jones

Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 565
Location: Massachusetts

Posted: Sun Jul 20, 2008 4:14 am Post subject: Re: The great(?) debate . . .

Bob, I'm with you on this. 



I have only a limited background in programming microprocessors, so I don't feel comfortable in coupling them with a systems or aircraft where everything is tied to a central computer. I certainly do subscribe to distributed microprocessors all over the place--in instruments, clocks, radios, displays, etc. I even like one-wire buses.



Some people like computerized check-lists and monitoring the temperature of every cylinder---automation everywhere. But the hair on the back of my neck stood straight up when Lance at NSI showed me his engine where there were computers and backups and backups for the backups for the backups. When has it been said "that the disaster happened because we didn't have enough automation"? (At Chernobyl, they turned OFF the computer safety interlocks.)



In my personal aircraft (Glastar 2.00 Turbo Subie N5EJ), It has no central computer, but if I did, I would need a backup central computer or maybe two, and then some switch-over dealy-whomper...and I'd have to kidnap a small IT person for the jumpseat to keep everything in tune. My design uses no central computer(s), and furthermore only uses microprocessors where they really add to the function. Good designers can disagree on this, but I am building an airplane that I will like to fly. 



Years ago Aviation Consumer ran a series of articles entitled (something like) "What is the perfect airplane?... They concluded that a truly miraculous airplane could be had by this very simple process...



1) Buy a structurally sound but completely flea-bitten woebegone dog   held-together-with-duct-tape, unloved...Cessna 182 . The uglier it is the better. 



2) Strip it to the bone...every nut, bolt, screw, bracket, tube, pulley, and every piece of plastic. Clean up, straighten and paint everything to better than factory fresh.  



3) With the bushels of money you saved, drop in a 1/4" windscreen, the very best seats, instruments, engine and props, flap and gap seals and the best speed mods that LoPresti Speed Merchants (now isn't that a great company name!) can produce. Get the autogas STC too.



What will you wind up with?....a magnificent flying machine that will handily outperform any stock C182, will go 200 mph on 7 gallons-per-hour (or so), will lift a full load of solid neutronium (or gold-pressed latinum bricks) off short runways...in quiet comfort, luxury and will sell for three times what you paid. It will be done in six months AND YOU WON'T HAVE TO DO ALL THE WORK.



  "...Beans for supper tonight, six o'clock. 

      Navy beans cooked in Oklahoma ham...

      Got to eat 'em with a spoon, raw onions

      and cornbread; nothing else...."

       --Will Rogers

_________________
Eric M. Jones
www.PerihelionDesign.com
113 Brentwood Drive
Southbridge, MA 01550
(508) 764-2072
emjones(at)charter.net

nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net
Guest

Posted: Sun Jul 20, 2008 6:06 am Post subject: The great(?) debate . . .

At 05:14 AM 7/20/2008 -0700, you wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		  



Bob, I'm with you on this.



I have only a limited background in programming microprocessors, so I 

don't feel comfortable in coupling them with a systems or aircraft where 

everything is tied to a central computer. I certainly do subscribe to 

distributed microprocessors all over the place--in instruments, clocks, 

radios, displays, etc. I even like one-wire buses.


	


   Yes, I believe I was instrumental in getting the first

   CAN-Bus onto a certified aircraft about 10 years ago.

   We used CAN to interconnect a suite of smart flap

   actuators on the Eclipse. When I proposed CAN for

   some projects I've been privileged to work on, it

   was immediately embraced by the software guys we

   were teamed with, "Yeah, we've been really happy

   with that technology, use it all the time."



   CAN was developed by Bosch with an eye on the

   ground transportation market. It was sucked

   into the textile industry big-time as a solution for

   implementing distributed processing on large

   looms, and it's been growing like a weed since.

   It's simple, easy to implement and just about

   everybody offers one or more microcontrollers

   with a CAN engine on the chip.



 	  Quote: 	
		  Some people like computerized check-lists and monitoring the temperature 

of every cylinder---automation everywhere. But the hair on the back of my 

neck stood straight up when Lance at NSI showed me his engine where there 

were computers and backups and backups for the backups for the backups. 

When has it been said "that the disaster happened because we didn't have 

enough automation"? (At Chernobyl, they turned OFF the computer safety 

interlocks.)


	


   It's easy to get sucked into the notion that

   since computers can do so much more than the

   humble gray matter and do it faster, that we

   can do ourselves a service by letting them

   take on more and more of our responsibilities.



   But they are just tools. Unthinking, unfeeling,

   unimaginative tools that are not self healing

   and not educable. They do not learn from their

   mistakes and they break.



   I've used and proposed a lot of them in new products

   to reduce parts count, improve on capability of

   the appliance to help humans own, operate and

   maintain their machines. But I'm exceedingly

   cautious of handing off any form of essential

   responsibility to them. Our colleagues are

   equally skeptical, hence the evolution of DO-178

   software development and testing rules. I am

   equally cautious of using them to ADD to the

   ability to do things that we've not found necessary

   or useful to do in the 100 year history of

   airplanes.



   By the same line of reasoning, I'm not automatically

   on the wagon with those who imagine, develop and

   market do-everything products just because they

   can. Once the product exists they're saddled

   with a need to market that product. When there no

   convincing operational and cost-of-ownership

   incentives arise for folks considering the product,

   they must resort to the oldest selling hammers

   in the book. Capitalize on the ignorance

   and fears of the consumer by invoking the

   gods of safety, reliability and of course

   convenience.

 	  Quote: 	
		  In my personal aircraft (Glastar 2.00 Turbo Subie N5EJ), It has no central 

computer, but if I did, I would need a backup central computer or maybe 

two, and then some switch-over dealy-whomper...and I'd have to kidnap a 

small IT person for the jumpseat to keep everything in tune. My design 

uses no central computer(s), and furthermore only uses microprocessors 

where they really add to the function. Good designers can disagree on 

this, but I am building an airplane that I will like to fly.


	


   When I saw NSI's fully redundant, twin EFI

   system schematics, I was similarly disposed to

   avoid getting involved in the program. I suggested

   that having ONE really capable EFI system backed

   up with a stone simple, non-electronic way to

   keep the engine running was preferable, less expensive,

   lighter, etc, etc. Some years back, a few folks

   installed my suggested "primer-line fuel injection"

   on their airplanes to back up the carburetor. One

   reader wrote later that he used it to get back on

   the ground comfortably after a fuel selector valve froze up.



http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Schematics/All-Elect-Fuel.jpg



   My personal design goals call for the back up

   system to be simpler, stand-alone alternatives

   to the bells-and-whistles that are interdependent

   on each other . . . things that break.



http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Misc/Failure_Tolerance.pdf

 	  Quote: 	
		  Years ago Aviation Consumer ran a series of articles entitled (something 

like) "What is the perfect airplane?... They concluded that a truly 

miraculous airplane could be had by this very simple process...



1) Buy a structurally sound but completely flea-bitten woebegone 

dog   held-together-with-duct-tape, unloved...Cessna 182 . The uglier it 

is the better.


	


   I know a guy in Harper that owns that airplane! He

   makes a ton of money with it photographing field

   conditions for the department of agriculture. Airplane

   looks like crap but flies hundreds of hours a year

   at a very reasonable cost of ownership.

 	  Quote: 	
		  2) Strip it to the bone...every nut, bolt, screw, bracket, tube, pulley, 

and every piece of plastic. Clean up, straighten and paint everything to 

better than factory fresh.



3) With the bushels of moneyyou saved, drop in a 1/4" windscreen, the very 

best seats, instruments, engine and props, flap and gap seals and the best 

speed mods that LoPresti Speed Merchants (now isn't that a great company 

name!) can produce. Get the autogas STC too.



What will you wind up with?....a magnificent flying machine that will 

handily outperform any stock C182, will go 200 mph on 7 gallons-per-hour 

(or so), will lift a full load of solid neutronium (or gold-pressed 

latinum bricks) off short runways...in quiet comfort, luxury and will sell 

for three times what you paid. It will be done in six months AND YOU WON'T 

HAVE TO DO ALL THE WORK.


	


   Exactly. I think the vast majority of small airplane

   owners possess these money-pits because of the

   opportunity it affords to DO SOMETHING that very

   few others choose to do. If somebody offered me

   an airplane that you climb into, program a destination

   and push the go-button, I wouldn't be the least

   interested at any price.



   I would prefer that Pacer because it's a product

   of my imagination and efforts to achieve a degree

   of utility and freedom that few experience and

   enjoy. There are folks that look at me with a

   skeptical expression and ask, "You ENJOY getting

   into that uncomfortable, noisy, expensive, un-forgiving

   machine and going somewhere?" Yes I do. Others

   get off on sky diving, snow boarding, speed boats,

   etc. But I like airplanes.



   About 15 years ago there was a company that made

   a pretty good business out of buying up select models

   of Cherokee, stripping them down to the structure.

   Re-prime, repaint, new seats, new panel, fresh

   engine. They could offer an as-new machine

   with modern electrics for a fraction of the

   cost of a new one and it flew just as good.



 	  Quote: 	
		     "...Beans for supper tonight, six o'clock.

       Navy beans cooked in Oklahoma ham...

       Got to eat 'em with a spoon, raw onions

       and cornbread; nothing else...."

        --Will Rogers


	


   A couple of nicely pickled jalapenos would be

   nice . . . but as Mr Rogers would no doubt

   observe, not essential.



   Bob . . .

marcausman

Joined: 08 Feb 2007
Posts: 70

Posted: Sun Jul 20, 2008 4:40 pm Post subject: Re: The great(?) debate . . .

Some people are innovators and some are laggards. Both types are fine, just decide which you are while building your plane.

_________________
Marc Ausman
http://www.verticalpower.com "Move up to a modern electrical system"
RV-7 IO-390 Flying

rgf(at)dcn.davis.ca.us
Guest

Posted: Sun Jul 20, 2008 7:18 pm Post subject: The great(?) debate . . .

Bob, thanks for responding to my query with your thoughts on the topic

(centralization and control of an aircraft electrical system). 



I have no experience with electrical systems or homebuilding, just starting

my RV-9A QB.  But even though I started programming with Fortran and punch

cards, I've kept reasonably current with computer usage and trends over the

last nearly 35 years.  I work with and develop numerical models of estuaries

at work.  In other words I still enjoy tinkering with PCs.  I won't

dogmatically put a technology on- or off-limits for a proposed application.

Well, true, it would be a hard sell to convince me that anything from

Microsoft would be safe aboard an airplane.



Furthermore, as I consider my experience over the last few years owning and

maintaining a minimal IFR Alon Aircoupe, I observe a number of problems have

come up with traditional "steam gage" technology as old as John McCain.  So

I won't consider an old technology automatically better.  Instead, each

technology must prove itself again as a competing idea comes along.



That forms the basis for the intrigue I feel about Vertical Power and its

concept.  I've already decided there will be absolutely no vacuum pumps on

my -9A.  And given the less than excellent reliability of mechanical gyros,

I will have an AHRS with at most a single electrical attitude gyro for

backup.  Given the use of AHRS, that means I can put in an EFIS with, again,

a few--very few--traditional round gages for backup.



At this point something like VP begins to seem reasonable.  When I first

heard of it only months ago I was shocked. Trust most of your electrical to

a single silicon box?  And then allow it to make decisions and actuate

switches and things on your behalf??  But as the idea soaked in over the

weeks and I read about others' experience with it--admittedly still

limited--I found myself warming up to the idea.



I'm still a year away from making a final decision to use VP.  But I

continue to solicit opinions everywhere I can, and again, sincerely

appreciate the time you took to write and post yours.



Ralph Finch

Davis, California



--

nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net
Guest

Posted: Mon Jul 21, 2008 5:55 am Post subject: The great(?) debate . . .

At 08:15 PM 7/20/2008 -0700, you wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		  



Bob, thanks for responding to my query with your thoughts on the topic

(centralization and control of an aircraft electrical system).



I have no experience with electrical systems or homebuilding, just starting

my RV-9A QB.  But even though I started programming with Fortran and punch

cards, I've kept reasonably current with computer usage and trends over the

last nearly 35 years.  I work with and develop numerical models of estuaries

at work.  In other words I still enjoy tinkering with PCs.  I won't

dogmatically put a technology on- or off-limits for a proposed application.

Well, true, it would be a hard sell to convince me that anything from

Microsoft would be safe aboard an airplane.



Furthermore, as I consider my experience over the last few years owning and

maintaining a minimal IFR Alon Aircoupe, I observe a number of problems have

come up with traditional "steam gage" technology as old as John McCain.  So

I won't consider an old technology automatically better.  Instead, each

technology must prove itself again as a competing idea comes along.


	


    But are the "problems" one of shortcomings in as-new performance?

    In other words, if this were a factory-new airplane, would you find

    the instruments as-supplied inadequate to the task? Or are the problems

    one of maintenance and failure to perform . . . i.e. the puppies are

    just worn out and/or suffering the effects of age?



 	  Quote: 	
		  That forms the basis for the intrigue I feel about Vertical Power and its

concept.  I've already decided there will be absolutely no vacuum pumps on

my -9A.


	


    Sure, and exceedingly easy to do.



 	  Quote: 	
		     And given the less than excellent reliability of mechanical gyros,

I will have an AHRS with at most a single electrical attitude gyro for

backup.  Given the use of AHRS, that means I can put in an EFIS with, again,

a few--very few--traditional round gages for backup.


	


    Yup, the new kids on the block with no moving parts are a

    no-brainer selection . . . especially since it's increasingly

    difficult to even find good useable HARDWARE that promises

    satisfactory service life and an acceptable cost of ownership.

 	  Quote: 	
		  At this point something like VP begins to seem reasonable.  When I first

heard of it only months ago I was shocked. Trust most of your electrical to

a single silicon box?  And then allow it to make decisions and actuate

switches and things on your behalf??  But as the idea soaked in over the

weeks and I read about others' experience with it--admittedly still

limited--I found myself warming up to the idea.


	


    As I had to state in my soliloquy it's certainly a matter

    of setting one's design goals and then meeting them but

    hopefully free of the Madison Avenue hammers of safety,

    reliability and convenience when the new product is clearly

    more complicated, heavier and expensive.



    If I have to walk into a planning meeting for the purpose

    of selling an idea where all the weight, cost and parts

    count numbers are moving in the wrong direction, there

    needs to be a really compelling reason for taking the

    hit to performance of our airplane.

 	  Quote: 	
		  I'm still a year away from making a final decision to use VP.  But I

continue to solicit opinions everywhere I can, and again, sincerely

appreciate the time you took to write and post yours.


	


    I understand. I would only suggest that you divide

    the thought processes into two categories. Appliance

    selection where clearly the performance, cost-of-ownership

    and reliability issues are inarguable. But these appliances

    only need to communicate with each other on WIRES. The

    performance, cost-of-ownership and reliability of copper

    has not changed in thousands of years . . . insulations

    have just about peaked (I've not seen a quantum jump

    in wire insulation in 20+ years  22759 is about as

    "ideal" and we need to be).



    So consider appliance selection and power distribution/

    control as two tasks. Distribution and control is

    not unlike the water system for your town. Yeah,

    there some new plastics for pipes and this valve

    design is longer lived and less expensive because

    it's assembled by machines . . . but the necessary

    functionality does not benefit much from the

    addition of software, touch screen and automated

    response to stimulus. Sometimes the best way to

    drive a nail is with a hammer.



    After sifting and sorting all those marbles you

    just WANT that kind of system in your airplane,

    by all means . . . and know that its incorporation

    does not present a great shift in risk. No matter

    what's in your panel, these guys should be in

    your flight bag.



http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Misc/Failure_Tolerance.pdf



    They work in your Aircoupe and will work just

    as well in your super-whizzy RV! The bottom line

    is to fly comfortably in either.



    Bob . . .

echristley(at)nc.rr.com
Guest

Posted: Mon Jul 21, 2008 6:16 am Post subject: The great(?) debate . . .

Ralph Finch wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   At this point something like VP begins to seem reasonable.  When I first

 heard of it only months ago I was shocked. Trust most of your electrical to

 a single silicon box?  And then allow it to make decisions and actuate

 switches and things on your behalf??  But as the idea soaked in over the

 weeks and I read about others' experience with it--admittedly still

 limited--I found myself warming up to the idea.

   

Ralph, the first thing to consider when thinking of the VP (or any other 
	


component) is "What am I gonna' do when that thing goes tits up?"  Those 

highly integrated devices want to control everything, but you need some 

way to access control of the flight critical systems totally independent 

of the computer, lest you surrender the title of PIC to a computer.



Consider this, I'm using a MegaSquirt, a DIY engine controller using 

open-source software which I will be modifying.  It controls both 

ignition and injectors.  I built it myself, and I'm perfectly 

comfortable with it.  How can I be so secure?  ...because of HOW it is used.



For the ignition, the MegaSquirt drives two Ford EDIS-4 ignition 

controllers.  Both will run independently of the Megasquirt, and either 

is capable of keeping the engine running (with a static advance).  If 

the MegaSquirt and one of the EDIS modules go south at the same time, I 

still get sparks.  If the generator goes out, one of the EDIS units has 

a separate generator dedicated to it.  For the fuel, the MegaSquirt has 

total control of the electronics.  If it fails, I lose all the 

injectors.  That didn't make me happy, so a second pickup from the tank 

(the Dyke Delta has only one) will be routed through a valve in order to 

gravity feed fuel directly to the throttle body.  If the MegaSquirt goes 

stupid on me, I simply switch it off and crack open the valve until the 

engine runs 'about right'.  The DIY engine controller is necessary for 

smooth starting, taxiing and takeoff.  It is inconsequential for cruise 

or landing.



If you can point to the VP as it is installed in your project and know 

that you will be safe if it blows smoke mid-flight, then move on to 

consider what neat things it can do for you and if your willing to pay 

for it.  But the first step is always to insure that you are and always 

will be PIC.



This advice carries a "100% satisfaction or double your money back" 

guarantee.

marcausman

Joined: 08 Feb 2007
Posts: 70

Posted: Mon Jul 21, 2008 7:22 am Post subject: Re: The great(?) debate . . .

If you install an EFIS, you are going to install backup gauges too. The same concept applies for Vertical Power. You can wire backup circuits for those circuits you deem "critical" so that they will continue to operate even if the system goes tango uniform. Take a look at the installation manual here: http://www.verticalpower.com/documents.html and you'll see a section dedicated to backup circuits, and they're fairly easy to wire. How many circuits need a backup is up to you, but we find that most customers have anywhere from zero (where EFIS has its own battery backup) to two backups.

_________________
Marc Ausman
http://www.verticalpower.com "Move up to a modern electrical system"
RV-7 IO-390 Flying

rgf(at)dcn.davis.ca.us
Guest

Posted: Tue Jul 22, 2008 7:57 pm Post subject: The great(?) debate . . .

--

sportav8r(at)gmail.com
Guest

Posted: Wed Jul 23, 2008 8:35 am Post subject: The great(?) debate . . .

Only a 4# increase in basic empty weight?!  If I were building again, I'd consider an extra 6 kilo$ outlay to _shave_ 4# from my next RV.  They couldn't pay me to _add_ the weight   Fly one for awhile and you'll see how much performance difference added weight makes.  A huge part of the appeal of glass over steam gauges, at least to me,  is weight savings.  This seems like a backwards move on that basis alone.

 

Bill RV-6A 700 hrs.



On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 11:52 PM, Ralph Finch <rgf(at)dcn.davis.ca.us (rgf(at)dcn.davis.ca.us)> wrote:

[quote] --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Ralph Finch" <rgf(at)dcn.davis.ca.us (rgf(at)dcn.davis.ca.us)>

 

 --

marcausman

Joined: 08 Feb 2007
Posts: 70

Posted: Wed Jul 23, 2008 8:50 am Post subject: Re: The great(?) debate . . .

You'd be surprised how much the switches, circuit breakers, dimmers, key switch, heat sinks, diodes, flap and trim modules, connectors, relays, and extra wire you need adds up on a traditional wiring scheme. It depends on a lot of things, but Vertical Power is about net-neutral or can shave off a few pounds.      And the VP-100 and VP-50 are even lighter than the numbers shown on the previous post.

_________________
Marc Ausman
http://www.verticalpower.com "Move up to a modern electrical system"
RV-7 IO-390 Flying

Eric M. Jones

Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 565
Location: Massachusetts

Posted: Thu Jul 24, 2008 4:25 am Post subject: Re: The great(?) debate . . .

Regarding weight savings....see:



http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/economics_of_weight_reduction.html

_________________
Eric M. Jones
www.PerihelionDesign.com
113 Brentwood Drive
Southbridge, MA 01550
(508) 764-2072
emjones(at)charter.net

longg(at)pjm.com
Guest

Posted: Thu Jul 24, 2008 5:59 am Post subject: The great(?) debate . . .

While American pilots spend countless hours building the ultimate light

weight wire/cable, they are getting wider in the process. Why not create

a proposal that each pilot be required to lose 25 pounds such that the

airplane is even lighter than the millimeters measured in high tech wire

savings. To their benefit they will magically feel healthier too.



I have now seen 260 pound men trying to squeeze into 600 pound LSA's

with much smirking. A little pathetic considering the benefit we are

trying to achieve with the lighter, cheaper, faster mentality made in

America.



Most small GA planes today are at or near the envelope with just two

normal guys in the front seat. I'd rather lose 20 pounds and add that in

equipment to my panel than try to save a few ounces on wire sheathing so

I can have another hamburger.



Another benefit is that a lighter load saves fuel and now we're all

happy.

nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net
Guest

Posted: Thu Jul 24, 2008 6:53 am Post subject: The great(?) debate . . .

At 09:52 AM 7/24/2008 -0400, you wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		  



While American pilots spend countless hours building the ultimate light

weight wire/cable, they are getting wider in the process. Why not create

a proposal that each pilot be required to lose 25 pounds such that the

airplane is even lighter than the millimeters measured in high tech wire

savings. To their benefit they will magically feel healthier too.



I have now seen 260 pound men trying to squeeze into 600 pound LSA's

with much smirking. A little pathetic considering the benefit we are

trying to achieve with the lighter, cheaper, faster mentality made in

America.



Most small GA planes today are at or near the envelope with just two

normal guys in the front seat. I'd rather lose 20 pounds and add that in

equipment to my panel than try to save a few ounces on wire sheathing so

I can have another hamburger.



Another benefit is that a lighter load saves fuel and now we're all

happy.


	


   Your logic is impeccable!



   Bob . . .

nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net
Guest

Posted: Thu Jul 24, 2008 7:03 am Post subject: The great(?) debate . . .

At 09:50 AM 7/23/2008 -0700, you wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		  



You'd be surprised how much the switches, circuit breakers, dimmers, key 

switch, heat sinks, diodes, flap and trim modules, connectors, relays, and 

extra wire you need adds up on a traditional wiring scheme. It depends on 

a lot of things, but Vertical Power is about net-neutral or can shave off 

a few pounds.      And the VP-100 and VP-50 are even lighter than the 

numbers shown on the previous post.


	


   Marc,



   Have you ever done an installed weight comparison between

   your offerings and their Tinker-Toy counterparts?

   This could be a powerful marketing tool.



   Bob . . .



        ----------------------------------------)

        ( . . .  a long habit of not thinking   )

        ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )

        ( appearance of being right . . .       )

        (                                       )

        (                  -Thomas Paine 1776-  )

        ----------------------------------------

frank.hinde(at)hp.com
Guest

Posted: Thu Jul 24, 2008 7:38 am Post subject: The great(?) debate . . .

I'm working on the principle that if I don't eat and ride my bike to work every day I can afford and extra 21 gallons of fuel..



Frank



Do not archive



--

Eric M. Jones

Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 565
Location: Massachusetts

Posted: Thu Jul 24, 2008 7:40 am Post subject: Re: The great(?) debate . . .

The chance that I will lose 25 pounds is MUCH less than the chance I will find a 100 pound cute blond girlfriend, who will share expenses.



There are some 150 pound tri-athlete pilots, but I see my becoming one unlikely. (By the way I knew Jim Fixx personally when he was overweight and smoked, then he lost weight became the marathon-running King and died....)



So more horsepower and a lighter airplane is the way to go for me...and a $100 tofu burger please.



"When trouble arises and things look bad, 

there is always one individual who perceives 

a solution and is willing to take command. 

Very often, that individual is crazy. 

--Dave Barry"



Do Not Archive

_________________
Eric M. Jones
www.PerihelionDesign.com
113 Brentwood Drive
Southbridge, MA 01550
(508) 764-2072
emjones(at)charter.net

andrewbutler(at)ireland.c
Guest

Posted: Fri Jul 25, 2008 1:12 am Post subject: The great(?) debate . . .

Thats gas (funny)! There was a DJ in Britian called Jimmy Saville who had a TV program the for almost 20 years that started in '70s called Jim'll Fix It (people would write in requesting a dream come true for someone they knew, young and old and he would make it happen). He was always smoking a huge cigar and he ran marathons into old age. He is a Knight now.



Speaking of triathlons, I did my first Olympic Triathlon in Connemara in the West of Ireland last Saturday. Hit 40 last year and the middle age crisis kicked in. I ain't 150 pounds, but I did loose about 3 inches or so on my waist from a tight 36 to loose 34 (how much weight is that?). Fantastic. That is a lotta lightening holes and a lotta hard graft, but very satisfying. It certatinly does put into perspective though worrying about the odd ounce or three here and there in weight savings.



Andrew.

[quote]---

Display posts from previous:

	Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> AeroElectric-List	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page 1, 2 Next
Page 1 of 2

Jump to:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum