Matronics Email Lists :: View topic - Vertical Power X-VP Pro or Sport

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

Vertical Power X-VP Pro or Sport

Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> AeroElectric-List

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author Message

N4ZQ(at)verizon.net
Guest

Posted: Thu Mar 24, 2016 5:57 am Post subject: Vertical Power X-VP Pro or Sport

Have any of you incorporated this box into your panel build?

Any feedback would be appreciated.



Thanks

Kellym

Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 1705
Location: Sun Lakes AZ

Posted: Thu Mar 24, 2016 6:22 am Post subject: Vertical Power X-VP Pro or Sport

Yes, I have it in my RV-10. So far seems to perform as expected through 

taxi testing. First flight up soon. What do you want to know?



On 3/24/2016 6:52 AM, Greenbacks, UnLtd. wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   



 Have any of you incorporated this box into your panel build?

 Any feedback would be appreciated.



 Thanks

_________________
Kelly McMullen
A&P/IA, EAA Tech Counselor # 5286
KCHD

jluckey(at)pacbell.net
Guest

Posted: Thu Mar 24, 2016 7:13 am Post subject: Vertical Power X-VP Pro or Sport

I have wondered about 2 issues w/ VP systems:

1. The all-your-eggs-in-one-basket issue.  If the unit fails the aircraft is down and you, the owner, cannot fix it.

2. The system adds several layers of complexity & cost to the relatively simple task of power distribution.

I'm curious if owners of the system share those concerns and how they address them.

-Jeff

 

    On Thursday, March 24, 2016 7:52 AM, Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com> wrote:



  



 --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com (kellym(at)aviating.com)>



Yes, I have it in my RV-10. So far seems to perform as expected through 

taxi testing. First flight up soon. What do you want to know?



On 3/24/2016 6:52 AM, Greenbacks, UnLtd. wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Greenbacks, UnLtd." <N4ZQ(at)verizon.net (N4ZQ(at)verizon.net)>



 Have any of you incorporated this box into your panel build?

 Any feedback would be appreciated.



 Thanks



http://w                -Matt Dralle, List =========

dee.whittington(at)gmail.
Guest

Posted: Thu Mar 24, 2016 7:29 am Post subject: Vertical Power X-VP Pro or Sport

Great to hear from you, Kelly. Dee Whittington, Richmond, VA, here. We have the Vertical Power VP-200, the original top of the line version. Which version do you have?Â  We expect it to work fine once we finally get our Sportsman flying. Unfortunately, we are going to have a local racing engine mechanic pull our Egg Subaru 3.6L engine apart again to install forged pistons. That is the fix suggested by Ross Farnham.Â 



By the way, where do you live, Kelly? And will you be at AirVenture 2016? I plan to be there all week.

Dee

804-677-4849 iPhone



DeWitt (Dee) WhittingtonRichmond, VA

804-677-4849 iPhone

804-358-4333 Home

 

On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 10:20 AM, Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com (kellym(at)aviating.com)> wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		  --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com (kellym(at)aviating.com)>

 

 Yes, I have it in my RV-10. So far seems to perform as expected through taxi testing. First flight up soon. What do you want to know?

 

 On 3/24/2016 6:52 AM, Greenbacks, UnLtd. wrote:

  	  Quote: 	
		   --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Greenbacks, UnLtd." <N4ZQ(at)verizon.net (N4ZQ(at)verizon.net)>

 

 Have any of you incorporated this box into your panel build?

 Any feedback would be appreciated.

 

 Thanks

 

 

 

 

 	
 

 ===========

 br> fts!)

 r> >  href="http://www.buildersbooks.com" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">www.buildersbooks.com

 rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution

 Â  Â  Â  Â  Â  -Matt Dralle, List Admin.

 ===========

  -

 Electric-List" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List

 ===========

  FORUMS -

 eferrer" target="_blank">http://forums.matronics.com

 ===========

 b Site -

 Â  Â  Â  Â  Â  -Matt Dralle, List Admin.

 rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution

 ===========

Kellym

Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 1705
Location: Sun Lakes AZ

Posted: Thu Mar 24, 2016 12:13 pm Post subject: Vertical Power X-VP Pro or Sport

I have the VPX-Pro. I am not concerned about the all in one nature, as I 

have not heard of significant failure rate, I have all magneto ignition, 

not dependent on ship's power. I have backup battery on both EFIS, I 

have Dynon D-1 backup EFIS that is supposed to go 4 hours on its 

battery, and the RV-10 is easy to overpower out of trim condition, and 

easy to land no flaps...Not worried about lost com, there are procedures 

for that, lost lights would only matter after dark.

The system gives more flexibility than fuses or circuit breakers. I 

don't perceive the complexity to be much different than hardware based 

distribution. If you add the labor of installing fuses and circuit 

breakers and manual switches for everything, wiring them all together, 

as well as the cost of that hardware, the VPX isn't that much more 

money. Kind of like comparing cost of steam gauge instruments vs an EFIS.

On 3/24/2016 8:11 AM, Jeff Luckey wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   I have wondered about 2 issues w/ VP systems:

 1. The all-your-eggs-in-one-basket issue.  If the unit fails the

 aircraft is down and you, the owner, cannot fix it.

 2. The system adds several layers of complexity & cost to the relatively

 simple task of power distribution.

 I'm curious if owners of the system share those concerns and how they

 address them.

 -Jeff

 On Thursday, March 24, 2016 7:52 AM, Kelly McMullen

 <kellym(at)aviating.com> wrote:

 <kellym(at)aviating.com <mailto:kellym(at)aviating.com>>

 Yes, I have it in my RV-10. So far seems to perform as expected through

 taxi testing. First flight up soon. What do you want to know?

 On 3/24/2016 6:52 AM, Greenbacks, UnLtd. wrote:

  > 

 <N4ZQ(at)verizon.net <mailto:N4ZQ(at)verizon.net>>

  >

  > Have any of you incorporated this box into your panel build?

  > Any feedback would be appreciated.

  >

  > Thanks

  >

  >http://w                -Matt Dralle, List =========

_________________
Kelly McMullen
A&P/IA, EAA Tech Counselor # 5286
KCHD

Michael Wynn

Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 148
Location: San Ramon, CA

Posted: Thu Mar 24, 2016 1:41 pm Post subject: Vertical Power X-VP Pro or Sport

I have a VP-X in my RV-8.  It has performed flawlessly and I think of  as a really good investment.  It has some very useful features like setting  up the flap travel, trim out of control override, etc.  A couple  clicks on the GRT MFD and I can see what circuits are busy, any "fuses"  blown, current draw, etc.  I would absolutely install it again were I  starting over.

 Michael Wynn

 RV-8

 Livermore, CA

  In a message dated 3/24/2016 1:14:58 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,  kellym(at)aviating.com writes:

  	  Quote: 	
		  [img]res://C:\Program Files (x86)\Nuance\NaturallySpeaking12\Program\web_ie.dll/QMARK.GIF[/img][img]res://C:\Program Files (x86)\Nuance\NaturallySpeaking12\Program\web_ie.dll/ARROW.GIF[/img]-->    AeroElectric-List message posted by: Kelly McMullen    <kellym(at)aviating.com>

I have the VPX-Pro. I am not concerned    about the all in one nature, as I 

have not heard of significant failure    rate, I have all magneto ignition, 

not dependent on ship's power. I have    backup battery on both EFIS, I 

have Dynon D-1 backup EFIS that is supposed    to go 4 hours on its 

battery, and the RV-10 is easy to overpower out of    trim condition, and 

easy to land no flaps...Not worried about lost com,    there are procedures 

for that, lost lights would only matter after    dark.

The system gives more flexibility than fuses or circuit breakers. I    

don't perceive the complexity to be much different than hardware based    

distribution. If you add the labor of installing fuses and circuit    

breakers and manual switches for everything, wiring them all together,    

as well as the cost of that hardware, the VPX isn't that much more    

money. Kind of like comparing cost of steam gauge instruments vs an    EFIS.

On 3/24/2016 8:11 AM, Jeff Luckey wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   I have wondered    about 2 issues w/ VP systems:

 1. The    all-your-eggs-in-one-basket issue.  If the unit fails the

    aircraft is down and you, the owner, cannot fix it.

 2. The    system adds several layers of complexity & cost to the relatively

    simple task of power distribution.

 I'm curious if owners of    the system share those concerns and how they

 address    them.

 -Jeff

 On Thursday, March 24,    2016 7:52 AM, Kelly McMullen

 <kellym(at)aviating.com>    wrote:

 --> AeroElectric-List message posted by:    Kelly McMullen

 <kellym(at)aviating.com    <mailto:kellym(at)aviating.com>>

 Yes, I have it in my    RV-10. So far seems to perform as expected through

 taxi testing. First    flight up soon. What do you want to know?

 On 3/24/2016 6:52    AM, Greenbacks, UnLtd. wrote:

  > --> AeroElectric-List    message posted by: "Greenbacks, UnLtd."

 <N4ZQ(at)verizon.net    <mailto:N4ZQ(at)verizon.net>>

  >

  > Have    any of you incorporated this box into your panel build?

  > Any    feedback would be appreciated.

  >

  >    Thanks

  >

  >http://w                   -Matt Dralle, List    =========

<========================nbsp;             (And Get Some AWESOME FREE     to find   Gifts       nbsp; List  k you for  p;                        -Matt Dralle,    List  ========================  = Use   utilities  Day  ================================================               - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS  ================================================             - List Contribution Web Site  sp;                             ===================================================

_________________
Michael Wynn
RV 8
San Ramon, CA

peter(at)sportingaero.com
Guest

Posted: Thu Mar 24, 2016 3:17 pm Post subject: Vertical Power X-VP Pro or Sport

I don't have one of these boxes in my airplane and won't be installing one of these in the airplane i am building, from my perspective there are several areas where it does provide good value:

 - The sales pitch is that designing electrical systems and wiring up is difficult and this box makes it easy. I don't agree with these statements!

 - It provides limited opportunities for expansion. There are a limited number of circuits available, once these are used up any additional services will have to be protected by conventional fuses or circuit breakers - seems to make the box a little pointless. 

 - The box is expensive compared to fuses.

 - Combining many functions in one box means that any failure becomes a significant event rather than just an annoyance.

 - The software is designed and coded to an unknown standard and tested in an unknown way, neither of which engenders confidence.

 - The standards used to design, build and test the hardware are not easy to discern, leading to questions on the long term reliability.

 - Using the box to control trim and flaps using an input from an EFIS places a huge amount of trust in the software writers where a fault risks potentially very serious consequences.

 - Those an have chosen to use this box can be very firm in their support, and intolerant of those who present an alternative view, flame suit on!! 

On the supportive side, the designer (Marc Ausman) is a huge supporter of homebuilt aviation, and is a director of EAA. The real world reliability seems to be reasonable. 

My advice would be to start by listing all the electrical functions you want in your aircraft, then which are key to the safe completion of a flight. If you have (m)any of these are you content to entrust the operation of these functions to the VPX? If you are list the cost of using fuses against other means. Install equipment for a reason! 

Peter On 24 Mar 2016 14:16, "Greenbacks, UnLtd." <N4ZQ(at)verizon.net (N4ZQ(at)verizon.net)> wrote: 	  Quote: 	
		  --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Greenbacks, UnLtd." <N4ZQ(at)verizon.net (N4ZQ(at)verizon.net)>

 

 Have any of you incorporated this box into your panel build?

 Any feedback would be appreciated.

 

 Thanks

 

 ===========

 br> fts!)

 r> > w.buildersbooks.com" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">www.buildersbooks.com

 rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution

 Â  Â  Â  Â  Â  -Matt Dralle, List Admin.

 ===========

  -

 Electric-List" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List

 ===========

  FORUMS -

 eferrer" target="_blank">http://forums.matronics.com

 ===========

 b Site -

 Â  Â  Â  Â  Â  -Matt Dralle, List Admin.

 rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution

 ===========

donjohnston

Joined: 13 Dec 2009
Posts: 231

Posted: Thu Mar 24, 2016 3:18 pm Post subject: Re: Vertical Power X-VP Pro or Sport

 	  N4ZQ(at)verizon.net wrote: 	
		  Have any of you incorporated this box into your panel build?

Any feedback would be appreciated.

	




I have the VPX-Pro in my Velocity. 



So far it's working great.  Support is great even after the buyout. 



There are methods to mitigate the possibility of a failure.  I utilize them for some of the critical functions (EFIS, AHRS and fuel pump).

jluckey(at)pacbell.net
Guest

Posted: Thu Mar 24, 2016 3:33 pm Post subject: Vertical Power X-VP Pro or Sport

Kelly,

While I may not agree w/ some of you assumptions, I have a better understanding of how you reached your conclusions.  Thanks for sharing that.

-Jeff

    On Thursday, March 24, 2016 1:11 PM, Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com> wrote:

 --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com (kellym(at)aviating.com)>

I have the VPX-Pro. I am not concerned about the all in one nature, as I 

have not heard of significant failure rate, I have all magneto ignition, 

not dependent on ship's power. I have backup battery on both EFIS, I 

have Dynon D-1 backup EFIS that is supposed to go 4 hours on its 

battery, and the RV-10 is easy to overpower out of trim condition, and 

easy to land no flaps...Not worried about lost com, there are procedures 

for that, lost lights would only matter after dark.

The system gives more flexibility than fuses or circuit breakers. I 

don't perceive the complexity to be much different than hardware based 

distribution. If you add the labor of installing fuses and circuit 

breakers and manual switches for everything, wiring them all together, 

as well as the cost of that hardware, the VPX isn't that much more 

money. Kind of like comparing cost of steam gauge instruments vs an EFIS.

On 3/24/2016 8:11 AM, Jeff Luckey wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   I have wondered about 2 issues w/ VP systems:

 1. The all-your-eggs-in-one-basket issue.  If the unit fails the

 aircraft is down and you, the owner, cannot fix it.

 2. The system adds several layers of complexity & cost to the relatively

 simple task of power distribution.

 I'm curious if owners of the system share those concerns and how they

 address them.

 -Jeff

 On Thursday, March 24, 2016 7:52 AM, Kelly McMullen

 <kellym(at)aviating.com (kellym(at)aviating.com)> wrote:

 --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Kelly McMullen

 <kellym(at)aviating.com (kellym(at)aviating.com) <mailto:kellym(at)aviating.com (kellym(at)aviating.com)>>

 Yes, I have it in my RV-10. So far seems to perform as expected through

 taxi testing. First flight up soon. What do you want to know?

 On 3/24/2016 6:52 AM, Greenbacks, UnLtd. wrote:

  > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Greenbacks, UnLtd."

 <N4ZQ(at)verizon.net (N4ZQ(at)verizon.net) <mailto:N4ZQ(at)verizon.net (N4ZQ(at)verizon.net)>>

  >

  > Have any of you incorporated this box into your panel build?

  > Any feedback would be appreciated.

  >

  > Thanks

  >

  >http://w                -Matt Dralle, List =========

 	  Quote: 	
		   htsp;                     -=          - The AeroElectric-List Email Forum -avigator?AeroElectric-List" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navi========================<brsp;  --> <a href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution" target="_bl===

Kellym

Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 1705
Location: Sun Lakes AZ

Posted: Thu Mar 24, 2016 6:32 pm Post subject: Vertical Power X-VP Pro or Sport

Misconceptions from lack of familiarity.



On 3/24/2016 4:15 PM, Peter Pengilly wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   - The sales pitch is that designing electrical systems and wiring up is

 difficult and this box makes it easy. I don't agree with these statements!

Never perceived it that way. It does simplify the wiring.
	


 	  Quote: 	
		   - It provides limited opportunities for expansion. There are a limited

 number of circuits available, once these are used up any additional

 services will have to be protected by conventional fuses or circuit

 breakers - seems to make the box a little pointless.

The Pro version is not that limited, is intended for full IFR panel, 
	


which is what I have, with several pins available for expansion.

 	  Quote: 	
		   - The box is expensive compared to fuses.

Not when you have to physically install each, do the labor to replace 
	


any that blow, etc. I had full hardware priced for CB & fuses 

system...easily $500. Add 100 hours of labor to design, and create panel 

of fuses/CB etc, and you are over price of VPX.

Advanced Flight Systems thought enough of the concept that they designed 

their own box.

 	  Quote: 	
		   - Combining many functions in one box means that any failure becomes a

 significant event rather than just an annoyance.

AFAIK, unknown event so far.
	


 	  Quote: 	
		   - The software is designed and coded to an unknown standard and tested

 in an unknown way, neither of which engenders confidence.

Have had no issues, have been operating the system for about 3 yrs.
	


 	  Quote: 	
		   - The standAFAIKards used to design, build and test the hardware are not easy

 to discern, leading to questions on the long term reliability.

Theoretical, where is data of unreliability?
	




 	  Quote: 	
		   - Using the box to control trim and flaps using an input from an EFIS

 places a huge amount of trust in the software writers where a fault

 risks potentially very serious consequences.

Does not use EFIS for input beyond airspeed, only outputs trim/flap 
	


position to EFIS. Position comes from trim motor or a position sensor. 

Power goes to trim/flap motor. No extra boxes needed for trim speed 

control, runaway protection, wig wag lights.

 	  Quote: 	
		   - Those an have chosen to use this box can be very firm in their

 support, and intolerant of those who present an alternative view, flame

 suit on!!

Only intolerant of criticism generated by lack of knowledge, not facts.
	




 	  Quote: 	
		   On the supportive side, the designer (Marc Ausman) is a huge supporter

 of homebuilt aviation, and is a director of EAA. The real world

 reliability seems to be reasonable.


	


Data behind that assertion???

 	  Quote: 	
		  

 My advice would be to start by listing all the electrical functions you

 want in your aircraft, then which are key to the safe completion of a

 flight. If you have (m)any of these are you content to entrust the

 operation of these functions to the VPX? If you are list the cost of

 using fuses against other means. Install equipment for as reason!



 Peter

No problem with your recommendations, but how electrically dependent is 
	


you aircraft? How critical are items beyond engine ignition? If 

critical, you need some independent backup. Are you not planning for 

portable GPS and Com radio for back up?

You can't fly commercial activities, so how much pressure is there to 

fly in solid IFR? Why would you design electrical system that is 

critical to continued flight without independent dual systems?

The VPX offers a lot of convenience and flexibility without hardware 

issues. want to switch an item from buss A to B? Just a software 

reconfigure. Want to change landing lights wig-wag function? Just 

software. Ditto for trim or flap limits. Have you flown an example of 

your aircraft model? Do you know how trim dependent it is?

_________________
Kelly McMullen
A&P/IA, EAA Tech Counselor # 5286
KCHD

peter(at)sportingaero.com
Guest

Posted: Thu Mar 24, 2016 11:25 pm Post subject: Vertical Power X-VP Pro or Sport

Flame suit is on and I stand by all of my comments. As VPX has control of trim and flap motor based on an input from the EFIS any error in this chain could cause significant problems. With an IFR aircraft it is just about essential to have an alternative power supply to the attitude instrument(s), outside of the VPX.  

I have had 25 years experience working with airborne software writers, I don't trust them as much as some here seem to!  

Peter On 25 Mar 2016 02:52, "Kelly McMullen" <kellym(at)aviating.com (kellym(at)aviating.com)> wrote: 	  Quote: 	
		  --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com (kellym(at)aviating.com)>

 

 Misconceptions from lack of familiarity.

 

 On 3/24/2016 4:15 PM, Peter Pengilly wrote:

  	  Quote: 	
		   - The sales pitch is that designing electrical systems and wiring up is

 difficult and this box makes it easy. I don't agree with these statements!

 	
 Never perceived it that way. It does simplify the wiring.

  	  Quote: 	
		   - It provides limited opportunities for expansion. There are a limited

 number of circuits available, once these are used up any additional

 services will have to be protected by conventional fuses or circuit

 breakers - seems to make the box a little pointless.

 	
 The Pro version is not that limited, is intended for full IFR panel, which is what I have, with several pins available for expansion.

  	  Quote: 	
		   - The box is expensive compared to fuses.

 	
 Not when you have to physically install each, do the labor to replace any that blow, etc. I had full hardware priced for CB & fuses system...easily $500. Add 100 hours of labor to design, and create panel of fuses/CB etc, and you are over price of VPX.

 Advanced Flight Systems thought enough of the concept that they designed their own box.

  	  Quote: 	
		   - Combining many functions in one box means that any failure becomes a

 significant event rather than just an annoyance.

 	
 AFAIK, unknown event so far.

  	  Quote: 	
		   - The software is designed and coded to an unknown standard and tested

 in an unknown way, neither of which engenders confidence.

 	
 Have had no issues, have been operating the system for about 3 yrs.

  	  Quote: 	
		   - The standAFAIKards used to design, build and test the hardware are not easy

 to discern, leading to questions on the long term reliability.

 	
 Theoretical, where is data of unreliability?

 

  	  Quote: 	
		   - Using the box to control trim and flaps using an input from an EFIS

 places a huge amount of trust in the software writers where a fault

 risks potentially very serious consequences.

 	
 Does not use EFIS for input beyond airspeed, only outputs trim/flap position to EFIS. Position comes from trim motor or a position sensor. Power goes to trim/flap motor. No extra boxes needed for trim speed control, runaway protection, wig wag lights.

  	  Quote: 	
		   - Those an have chosen to use this box can be very firm in their

 support, and intolerant of those who present an alternative view, flame

 suit on!!

 	
 Only intolerant of criticism generated by lack of knowledge, not facts.

 

  	  Quote: 	
		   On the supportive side, the designer (Marc Ausman) is a huge supporter

 of homebuilt aviation, and is a director of EAA. The real world

 reliability seems to be reasonable.

 	
 

 Data behind that assertion???

  	  Quote: 	
		   

 My advice would be to start by listing all the electrical functions you

 want in your aircraft, then which are key to the safe completion of a

 flight. If you have (m)any of these are you content to entrust the

 operation of these functions to the VPX? If you are list the cost of

 using fuses against other means. Install equipment for as reason!

 

 Peter

 	
 No problem with your recommendations, but how electrically dependent is you aircraft? How critical are items beyond engine ignition? If critical, you need some independent backup. Are you not planning for portable GPS and Com radio for back up?

 You can't fly commercial activities, so how much pressure is there to fly in solid IFR? Why would you design electrical system that is critical to continued flight without independent dual systems?

 The VPX offers a lot of convenience and flexibility without hardware issues. want to switch an item from buss A to B? Just a software reconfigure. Want to change landing lights wig-wag function? Just software. Ditto for trim or flap limits. Have you flown an example of your aircraft model? Do you know how trim dependent it is?

 

 ===========

 br> fts!)

 r> >  href="http://www.buildersbooks.com" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">www.buildersbooks.com

 rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution

 Â  Â  Â  Â  Â  -Matt Dralle, List Admin.

 ===========

  -

 Electric-List" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List

 ===========

  FORUMS -

 eferrer" target="_blank">http://forums.matronics.com

 ===========

 b Site -

 Â  Â  Â  Â  Â  -Matt Dralle, List Admin.

 rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution

 ===========

jan(at)CLAVER.DEMON.CO.UK
Guest

Posted: Fri Mar 25, 2016 10:42 am Post subject: Vertical Power X-VP Pro or Sport

J .. someone once told me that ignorance is bliss …  

   

Jan  

         

  

From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Peter Pengilly

 Sent: 25 March 2016 07:23

 To: Aeroelectric List (aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com)

 Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Vertical Power X-VP Pro or Sport  

  

   

Flame suit is on and I stand by all of my comments. As VPX has control of trim and flap motor based on an input from the EFIS any error in this chain could cause significant problems. With an IFR aircraft it is just about essential to have an alternative power supply to the attitude instrument(s), outside of the VPX.   

I have had 25 years experience working with airborne software writers, I don't trust them as much as some here seem to!   

Peter    

On 25 Mar 2016 02:52, "Kelly McMullen" <kellym(at)aviating.com (kellym(at)aviating.com)> wrote:  

--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com (kellym(at)aviating.com)>

 

 Misconceptions from lack of familiarity.

 

 On 3/24/2016 4:15 PM, Peter Pengilly wrote:  

- The sales pitch is that designing electrical systems and wiring up is

 difficult and this box makes it easy. I don't agree with these statements!  

Never perceived it that way. It does simplify the wiring.  

- It provides limited opportunities for expansion. There are a limited

 number of circuits available, once these are used up any additional

 services will have to be protected by conventional fuses or circuit

 breakers - seems to make the box a little pointless.  

The Pro version is not that limited, is intended for full IFR panel, which is what I have, with several pins available for expansion.  

- The box is expensive compared to fuses.  

Not when you have to physically install each, do the labor to replace any that blow, etc. I had full hardware priced for CB & fuses system...easily $500. Add 100 hours of labor to design, and create panel of fuses/CB etc, and you are over price of VPX.

 Advanced Flight Systems thought enough of the concept that they designed their own box.  

- Combining many functions in one box means that any failure becomes a

 significant event rather than just an annoyance.  

AFAIK, unknown event so far.  

- The software is designed and coded to an unknown standard and tested

 in an unknown way, neither of which engenders confidence.  

Have had no issues, have been operating the system for about 3 yrs.  

- The standAFAIKards used to design, build and test the hardware are not easy

 to discern, leading to questions on the long term reliability.  

Theoretical, where is data of unreliability?  

- Using the box to control trim and flaps using an input from an EFIS

 places a huge amount of trust in the software writers where a fault

 risks potentially very serious consequences.  

Does not use EFIS for input beyond airspeed, only outputs trim/flap position to EFIS. Position comes from trim motor or a position sensor. Power goes to trim/flap motor. No extra boxes needed for trim speed control, runaway protection, wig wag lights.  

- Those an have chosen to use this box can be very firm in their

 support, and intolerant of those who present an alternative view, flame

 suit on!!  

Only intolerant of criticism generated by lack of knowledge, not facts.  

On the supportive side, the designer (Marc Ausman) is a huge supporter

 of homebuilt aviation, and is a director of EAA. The real world

 reliability seems to be reasonable.  



 Data behind that assertion???  



 My advice would be to start by listing all the electrical functions you

 want in your aircraft, then which are key to the safe completion of a

 flight. If you have (m)any of these are you content to entrust the

 operation of these functions to the VPX? If you are list the cost of

 using fuses against other means. Install equipment for as reason!

 

 Peter  

No problem with your recommendations, but how electrically dependent is you aircraft? How critical are items beyond engine ignition? If critical, you need some independent backup. Are you not planning for portable GPS and Com radio for back up?

 You can't fly commercial activities, so how much pressure is there to fly in solid IFR? Why would you design electrical system that is critical to continued flight without independent dual systems?

 The VPX offers a lot of convenience and flexibility without hardware issues. want to switch an item from buss A to B? Just a software reconfigure. Want to change landing lights wig-wag function? Just software. Ditto for trim or flap limits. Have you flown an example of your aircraft model? Do you know how trim dependent it is?

 

 ===========

 br> fts!)

 r> > href="http://www.buildersbooks.com" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">www.buildersbooks.com

 rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution

           -Matt Dralle, List Admin.

 ===========

 -

 Electric-List" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List

 ===========

 FORUMS -

 eferrer" target="_blank">http://forums.matronics.com

 ===========

 b Site -

           -Matt Dralle, List Admin.

 rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution

 ===========

Kellym

Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 1705
Location: Sun Lakes AZ

Posted: Fri Mar 25, 2016 12:38 pm Post subject: Vertical Power X-VP Pro or Sport

Your assertion that the flap and trim in the VPX is dependent on EFIS is 

flat incorrect. It only uses the airspeed to control how fast the trim 

motor runs or to prevent exceeding flap airspeed limit, which is 

something other systems don't do. You apparently missed that I have 

independent power backup to EFIS should something fail in the VPX. I 

also have an independent EFIS that isn't dependent on ship's power at 

all, which has battery life close to fuel range of the aircraft.

The likely problems a failure of the VPX would cause is same as loss of 

alternator. I suppose a circuit could go crazy, so you turn the master 

off. I don't trust the VPX any more than I do the alternator or 

traditional power layouts. I've seen the failure of voltage regulators 

and overvoltage systems and the havoc they cause. If you have planned 

correctly, there is no more risk than a traditional fuse and circuit 

breaker design. Asserting there is more risk has no demonstrated basis 

that I have seen. If you have evidence, please educate us.



On 3/25/2016 12:23 AM, Peter Pengilly wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   Flame suit is on and I stand by all of my comments. As VPX has control

 of trimou  and flap motor based on an input from the EFIS any error in this

 chain could cause significant problems. With an IFR aircraft it is just

 about essential to have an alternative power supply to the attitude

 instrument(s), outside of the VPX.



 I have had 25 years experience working with airborne software writers, I

 don't trust them as much as some here seem to!



 Peter



 On 25 Mar 2016 02:52, "Kelly McMullen" <kellym(at)aviating.com

 <mailto:kellym(at)aviating.com>> wrote:



     

     <kellym(at)aviating.com <mailto:kellym(at)aviating.com>>



     Misconceptions from lack of familiarity.



     On 3/24/2016 4:15 PM, Peter Pengilly wrote:



         - The sales pitch is that designing electrical systems and

         wiring up is

         difficult and this box makes it easy. I don't agree with these

         statements!



     Never perceived it that way. It does simplify the wiring.



         - It provides limited opportunities for expansion. There are a

         limited

         number of circuits available, once these are used up any additional

         services will have to be protected by conventional fuses or circuit

         breakers - seems to make the box a little pointless.



     The Pro version is not that limited, is intended for full IFR panel,

     which is what I have, with several pins available for expansion.



         - The box is expensive compared to fuses.



     Not when you have to physically install each, do the labor to

     replace any that blow, etc. I had full hardware priced for CB &

     fuses system...easily $500. Add 100 hours of labor to design, and

     create panel of fuses/CB etc, and you are over price of VPX.

     Advanced Flight Systems thought enough of the concept that they

     designed their own box.



         - Combining many functions in one box means that any failure

         becomes a

         significant event rather than just an annoyance.



     AFAIK, unknown event so far.



         - The software is designed and coded to an unknown standard and

         tested

         in an unknown way, neither of which engenders confidence.



     Have had no issues, have been operating the system for about 3 yrs.



         - The standAFAIKards used to design, build and test the hardware

         are not easy

         to discern, leading to questions on the long term reliability.



     Theoretical, where is data of unreliability?



         - Using the box to control trim and flaps using an input from an

         EFIS

         places a huge amount of trust in the software writers where a fault

         risks potentially very serious consequences.



     Does not use EFIS for input beyond airspeed, only outputs trim/flap

     position to EFIS. Position comes from trim motor or a position

     sensor. Power goes to trim/flap motor. No extra boxes needed for

     trim speed control, runaway protection, wig wag lights.



         - Those an have chosen to use this box can be very firm in their

         support, and intolerant of those who present an alternative

         view, flame

         suit on!!



     Only intolerant of criticism generated by lack of knowledge, not facts.



         On the supportive side, the designer (Marc Ausman) is a huge

         supporter

         of homebuilt aviation, and is a director of EAA. The real world

         reliability seems to be reasonable.

     Data behind that assertion???

         My advice would be to start by listing all the electrical

         functions you

         want in your aircraft, then which are key to the safe completion

         of a

         flight. If you have (m)any of these are you content to entrust the

         operation of these functions to the VPX? If you are list the cost of

         using fuses against other means. Install equipment for as reason!



         Peter



     No problem with your recommendations, but how electrically dependent

     is you aircraft? How critical are items beyond engine ignition? If

     critical, you need some independent backup. Are you not planning for

     portable GPS and Com radio for back up?

     You can't fly commercial activities, so how much pressure is there

     to fly in solid IFR? Why would you design electrical system that is

     critical to continued flight without independent dual systems?

     The VPX offers a lot of convenience and flexibility without hardware

     issues. want to switch an item from buss A to B? Just a software

     reconfigure. Want to change landing lights wig-wag function? Just

     software. Ditto for trim or flap limits. Have you flown an example

     of your aircraft model? Do you know how trim dependent it is?



     ===========

     br> fts!)

     r> > href="http://www.buildersbooks.com" rel="noreferrer"

     target="_blank">www.buildersbooks.com

     rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution

                -Matt Dralle, List Admin.

     ===========

     -

     Electric-List" rel="noreferrer"

     target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List

     ===========

     FORUMS -

     eferrer" target="_blank">http://forums.matronics.com

     ===========

     b Site -

                -Matt Dralle, List Admin.

     rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution

     ===========

_________________
Kelly McMullen
A&P/IA, EAA Tech Counselor # 5286
KCHD

peter(at)sportingaero.com
Guest

Posted: Fri Mar 25, 2016 4:09 pm Post subject: Vertical Power X-VP Pro or Sport

That's a rather angry post, let's try to take the emotion out of this 

discussion.



Looking at the flap and trim control only. The VPX is a software driven 

machine. It takes switch inputs, recognises the pilot has requested a 

certain action and switches power to a service. The logic is executed by 

software. I do not know what standard was used to design, code and test 

the software. The VPX has full control of the flap and trim motors and 

can drive them to full deflection at any time it chooses, either would 

be rather bad news in most aircraft, particularly at cruise speed . If 

that were to happen at a slow rate I believe the only way to stop it 

would be to shut down the whole VPX - I'm not even sure if that is 

possible. I hope there are some protections built into the VPX to 

prevent un-commanded movement, but I don't know as I cannot find that 

data in the public domain. Therefore we only have the assertions of the 

designers that motor run-aways will not happen.



EFISs are also software driven machines, all of the common uncertified 

EFISs are in the same boat - I have asked the manufacturers how their 

software was written, they have declined to answer.



So we have a device of unknown quality passing data to a second device 

of equally unknown quality to control a function that we really need to 

work correctly all of the time. That is rather too much trust to put in 

people I have never met and who are unwilling to describe how they 

ensure their design goals are achieved in their products.



However good a VPX is at managing an electrical system, from my 

perspective this type of function is taking unnecessary risks for very 

little gain. It is also expensive when a few fuses will carry out the 

same job.



Peter

On 25/03/2016 20:35, Kelly McMullen wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   

 <kellym(at)aviating.com>



 Your assertion that the flap and trim in the VPX is dependent on EFIS 

 is flat incorrect. It only uses the airspeed to control how fast the 

 trim motor runs or to prevent exceeding flap airspeed limit, which is 

 something other systems don't do. You apparently missed that I have 

 independent power backup to EFIS should something fail in the VPX. I 

 also have an independent EFIS that isn't dependent on ship's power at 

 all, which has battery life close to fuel range of the aircraft.

 The likely problems a failure of the VPX would cause is same as loss 

 of alternator. I suppose a circuit could go crazy, so you turn the 

 master off. I don't trust the VPX any more than I do the alternator or 

 traditional power layouts. I've seen the failure of voltage regulators 

 and overvoltage systems and the havoc they cause. If you have planned 

 correctly, there is no more risk than a traditional fuse and circuit 

 breaker design. Asserting there is more risk has no demonstrated basis 

 that I have seen. If you have evidence, please educate us.



 On 3/25/2016 12:23 AM, Peter Pengilly wrote:

> Flame suit is on and I stand by all of my comments. As VPX has control

> of trimou  and flap motor based on an input from the EFIS any error 

> in this

> chain could cause significant problems. With an IFR aircraft it is just

> about essential to have an alternative power supply to the attitude

> instrument(s), outside of the VPX.

>

> I have had 25 years experience working with airborne software writers, I

> don't trust them as much as some here seem to!

>

> Peter

>

> On 25 Mar 2016 02:52, "Kelly McMullen" <kellym(at)aviating.com

> <mailto:kellym(at)aviating.com>> wrote:

>

>     

>     <kellym(at)aviating.com <mailto:kellym(at)aviating.com>>

>

>     Misconceptions from lack of familiarity.

>

>     On 3/24/2016 4:15 PM, Peter Pengilly wrote:

>

>         - The sales pitch is that designing electrical systems and

>         wiring up is

>         difficult and this box makes it easy. I don't agree with these

>         statements!

>

>     Never perceived it that way. It does simplify the wiring.

>

>         - It provides limited opportunities for expansion. There are a

>         limited

>         number of circuits available, once these are used up any 

> additional

>         services will have to be protected by conventional fuses or 

> circuit

>         breakers - seems to make the box a little pointless.

>

>     The Pro version is not that limited, is intended for full IFR panel,

>     which is what I have, with several pins available for expansion.

>

>         - The box is expensive compared to fuses.

>

>     Not when you have to physically install each, do the labor to

>     replace any that blow, etc. I had full hardware priced for CB &

>     fuses system...easily $500. Add 100 hours of labor to design, and

>     create panel of fuses/CB etc, and you are over price of VPX.

>     Advanced Flight Systems thought enough of the concept that they

>     designed their own box.

>

>         - Combining many functions in one box means that any failure

>         becomes a

>         significant event rather than just an annoyance.

>

>     AFAIK, unknown event so far.

>

>         - The software is designed and coded to an unknown standard and

>         tested

>         in an unknown way, neither of which engenders confidence.

>

>     Have had no issues, have been operating the system for about 3 yrs.

>

>         - The standAFAIKards used to design, build and test the hardware

>         are not easy

>         to discern, leading to questions on the long term reliability.

>

>     Theoretical, where is data of unreliability?

>

>         - Using the box to control trim and flaps using an input from an

>         EFIS

>         places a huge amount of trust in the software writers where a 

> fault

>         risks potentially very serious consequences.

>

>     Does not use EFIS for input beyond airspeed, only outputs trim/flap

>     position to EFIS. Position comes from trim motor or a position

>     sensor. Power goes to trim/flap motor. No extra boxes needed for

>     trim speed control, runaway protection, wig wag lights.

>

>         - Those an have chosen to use this box can be very firm in their

>         support, and intolerant of those who present an alternative

>         view, flame

>         suit on!!

>

>     Only intolerant of criticism generated by lack of knowledge, not 

> facts.

>

>         On the supportive side, the designer (Marc Ausman) is a huge

>         supporter

>         of homebuilt aviation, and is a director of EAA. The real world

>         reliability seems to be reasonable.

>     Data behind that assertion???

>         My advice would be to start by listing all the electrical

>         functions you

>         want in your aircraft, then which are key to the safe completion

>         of a

>         flight. If you have (m)any of these are you content to 

> entrust the

>         operation of these functions to the VPX? If you are list the 

> cost of

>         using fuses against other means. Install equipment for as 

> reason!

>

>         Peter

>

>     No problem with your recommendations, but how electrically dependent

>     is you aircraft? How critical are items beyond engine ignition? If

>     critical, you need some independent backup. Are you not planning for

>     portable GPS and Com radio for back up?

>     You can't fly commercial activities, so how much pressure is there

>     to fly in solid IFR? Why would you design electrical system that is

>     critical to continued flight without independent dual systems?

>     The VPX offers a lot of convenience and flexibility without hardware

>     issues. want to switch an item from buss A to B? Just a software

>     reconfigure. Want to change landing lights wig-wag function? Just

>     software. Ditto for trim or flap limits. Have you flown an example

>     of your aircraft model? Do you know how trim dependent it is?

>

>     ===========

>     br> fts!)

>     r> > href="http://www.buildersbooks.com" rel="noreferrer"

>     target="_blank">www.buildersbooks.com

>     rel="noreferrer" 

> target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution

>                -Matt Dralle, List Admin.

>     ===========

>     -

>     Electric-List" rel="noreferrer"

> target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List

>     ===========

>     FORUMS -

>     eferrer" target="_blank">http://forums.matronics.com

>     ===========

>     b Site -

>                -Matt Dralle, List Admin.

>     rel="noreferrer" 

> target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution

>     ===========

>

Kellym

Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 1705
Location: Sun Lakes AZ

Posted: Fri Mar 25, 2016 7:02 pm Post subject: Vertical Power X-VP Pro or Sport

Who wouldn't be annoyed with someone making negative assertions with 

zero data, against a product simply because the company won't hand over 

their proprietary software/circuitry, etc. Just because you haven't been 

given the opportunity to copy their design, critique their methods, etc. 

that they spent good money/time developing.

About as useful a post as one about various flavors of politicians.

Doesn't advance the knowledge of the equipment one bit. Just a waste of 

bandwidth. All based on zero information, just speculation.

Out of respect for Bob, I won't say more.

Would like information on any failures, with details, to help us better 

understand the risks and how to avoid them.

_________________
Kelly McMullen
A&P/IA, EAA Tech Counselor # 5286
KCHD

jan(at)claver.demon.co.uk
Guest

Posted: Sat Mar 26, 2016 2:33 am Post subject: Vertical Power X-VP Pro or Sport

I could be wrong here but I do not think Peter is after looking at the code

in detail - All I think he is asking is to what standards are the software

designed ..  Is it event driven .. is it time triggered ..  if you want to

be educated .. just do a Google on Software development for mission critical

software systems  ... IEC 61508, ISO 26262, DO-178C, MISRA C.



So the point here is (I think anyway) . if the supplier is not willing to

say to what standard the software is written. Then as an individual you take

the trust of who ever has written it ...  True you can write software to a

particular standard, and still get it wrong .. but at the end of the day ..

writing and following a known standards does at least say something about

how the system was designed.



Jan



--

peter(at)sportingaero.com
Guest

Posted: Sat Mar 26, 2016 5:27 am Post subject: Vertical Power X-VP Pro or Sport

Please see point 8 in my original post.

     

     I don't want to see anyone's proprietary information, I haven't     coded anything in several years and anyway looking at code is often     unproductive. I have designed complex airborne systems and it is the     standards used to guide the design process and the design goals that     I am interested in.

     

     All complex electronics are expensive, and represent a significant     investment from the owner. Just saying, 'this is great, give me     loads of money' is a rather condescending outlook. I have an EFIS in     my aircraft, I bought a unit from a company that was the most open     about how it designed its products when I was shopping. I asked them     all the same questions,Â  see here     and here     although they are a little dated now. All I am seeking is some level     of assurance that expensive products that carry out important     functions are designed appropriately.

     

     Please provide the data you used to determine that using a VPX as     you do in your aircraft is a sensible thing to do. You have stated     that a VPX is not expensive, to make that assertion you must have     compared the cost against using fuses. Can you share that analysis?

     

     My aim is to help builders/owners to understand the risks they are     running by installing various equipment in their aircraft. If you     understand the risks and are prepared to accept them I have no issue     at all. The OP asked for feedback, I am explaining why I have not     installed the device.

     

     Peter 

     

     On 26/03/2016 02:58, Kelly McMullen       wrote:

     

      	  Quote: 	
		  -->       AeroElectric-List message posted by: Kelly McMullen       <kellym(at)aviating.com> (kellym(at)aviating.com)       

       

       Who wouldn't be annoyed with someone making negative assertions       with zero data, against a product simply because the company won't       hand over their proprietary software/circuitry, etc. Just because       you haven't been given the opportunity to copy their design,       critique their methods, etc. that they spent good money/time       developing.       

       About as useful a post as one about various flavors of       politicians.       

       Doesn't advance the knowledge of the equipment one bit. Just a       waste of bandwidth. All based on zero information, just       speculation.       

       Out of respect for Bob, I won't say more.       

       Would like information on any failures, with details, to help us       better understand the risks and how to avoid them.

nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelect
Guest

Posted: Sat Mar 26, 2016 1:01 pm Post subject: Vertical Power X-VP Pro or Sport

At 10:11 AM 3/24/2016, you wrote:

  	  Quote: 	
		  I have wondered about 2 issues w/ VP systems:



 1. The all-your-eggs-in-one-basket issue.  If the unit fails the aircraft is down and you, the owner, cannot fix it.



 2. The system adds several layers of complexity & cost to the relatively simple task of power distribution.



 I'm curious if owners of the system share those concerns and how they address them. 	


    We've had discussions about these kinds of systems

    on numerous occasions over the years that began

    with relatively innocuous products like the EXP-Bus



  http://tinyurl.com/jucvcar



    and sort of reached an apex with the Vertical

    Power products. Based on my experience in the TC

    aircraft world, I've always assessed such offerings

    from two perspectives:



    Cost of ownership:  Over the lifetime of the

    airplane . . . from the day you plunk down your credit

    card to order the product until the time you

    sell or scrap the airplane, what is the $service-value$

    when compared to the $acquisition/maintenance value$?



    Part of that cost of ownership has to include cost

    to acquire and install the system. Our airplanes are

    not very complex. A review of the Z-figures describes

    a range of complexity from ultra-lights to a Lance Air

    4P.  If one chooses to wire up fuse blocks and flip

    switches purchased at the hardware store, the cost

    of acquisition can be quite nominal . . . but the

    number of tinker-toys is greater and they are not

    combined into plug-n-play modules. 



    However, no single component is very expensive hence

    easily and cheaply replaced when it reaches end of

    service life. Further, nothing is 'automatic' . . .

    we are encouraged to be technically cognizant pilots,

    not appliance operators. Even when you consider the

    totality of automation offered by any airplane 

    super-system, what percentage of your block-to-block

    trip time is consumed doing those operations yourself?



    Once you've deduce the demands on your time and

    attention for manual operations, how much are you

    willing to pay to have those things done for you?

    The other side of the coin begs the question for

    how much understanding and in-flight cognizance

    is discouraged or even denied to you when you let

    the software do it for you?



    I am reminded of a line from "The Right Stuff" attributed

    to Deke Slayton of the original astronauts after

    discovering that they were being selected to be

    mere passengers on the first US manned space flights.

    

 Deke Slayton: What Gus is saying is that we're missing the point. What

 Gus is saying is that we all heard the rumors that they want to send a

 monkey up first. Well, none of us wants to think that they're gonna send

 a monkey up to do a man's work. But what Gus is saying is that what

 they're trying to do to us is send a man up to do a monkey's work.

 Us, a bunch of college-trained chimpanzees! 



    Animals had been used in aeronautic exploration since 1783 when

    the Montgolfier brothers sent a sheep, a duck and a rooster aloft

    in a hot air balloon. We've come a long way since then . . . we

    KNOW that high speed motion at altitude is not inherently

    hazardous . . . we also know that MOST unhappy days in the

    cockpit have roots in lack of knowledge, skill or just inattention.

   

    I started the AeroElectric Connection in 1988 based on

    an observation at OSH suggesting that the electrical system

    was the least understood component of the OBAM aircraft.

    The 'Connection grew out of the notion that the whole

    universe runs on stone-simple-ideas in physics. All

    creativity is a study in properties of materials and

    management of energy. Ergo, if you can learn to make

    bread or repair your lawn mower, you can also learn

    to how to craft and operate a machine that would have

    scared the socks of the Montgolfier brothers with less

    risk than their first living passengers might have been

    exposed to.



    If Goggle has their way, self flying airplanes are

    right on the heals of self-driving cars. No doubt there

    will be customers for those products. Don't know why

    everyone else likes to fly but I do it because I'm a

    pilot with an intense interest in how and why the machine

    works while maintaining it with a minimum of interference,

    cost and down time for repairs.



    Probability for electrical system malfunctions being

    root cause for bent machines and/or people are vanishingly

    small. Yet many of our brothers 'worry' about the electrics

    for what I'll suggest are two primary reasons. Lack of

    understanding combined with the relative frequency of

    'dark n stormy night' stories in the aviation rags that

    speak to electrical systems issues while illuminating

    the pilot's ignorance.



    If installing a 'push-button' electrical system is

    attractive, then do some soul searching for the motivation.

    I it a ploy to avoid a need to understand . . . or just

    a love of technological bells and whistles. If money

    is no object and having and airplane with lots of

    nice displays is a goal, then by all means. But if money

    is tight but you're worried about the artful combination

    of simple-ingredients in a recipe for success, then

    allow me to suggest that the learning curve is steep

    and not difficult. If push-button utility is the

    goal, then know that virtually ALL products ranging from

    EXP-Bus to Vertical Power do perform as advertised.

    Choice of products is all about how large the bells-and-

    whistles bucket is.



    Another consideration is cost of ownership for the

    fielded system. When it breaks, what are your options

    for getting it back in service, at what cost and down

    time on the airplane? There's a cost of competence and

    confidence when the root cause of failure is not

    understood and remedy is beyond your control. A

    situation that seldom occurs when your recipe for

    success is a collection of simple components from

    the hardware store.



    The second benchmark speaks to failure mode effects

    analysis and mitigation that asks the following

    questions:



 1. How many ways can this part fail?



 2. How will each failure affect system operation?



 3. How will I know it failed?



 4. Is the failure pre-flight detectable?



 5. Is failure of this part, in any failure mode, likely to create

    a hazard to flight?



 6. Will failure of this part be likely to overtax my piloting

    skills for comfortably terminating the flight?



    When you're looking at a nice touch-screen with

    lots of pretty colors, most of the answers to the

    above are not known to you. On the other hand, a

    small box of fuses, switches, relays, terminals

    and wire has no secrets . . . and allows the builder

    to comfortably asses all the above and the important

    SEVENTH question:



 7. Is there any failure with effects that influence more

    than one system?



    Having good answers to the above is foundation

    for a failure tolerant, low maintenance, minimum

    cost of ownership product with minimized risk. That's how

    be built Beechjets and Bonanzas . . . machines I

    like to think of as airplanes for pilots.



 

 

   Bob . . .

Display posts from previous:

	Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> AeroElectric-List	All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Page 1 of 1

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