Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 02:05 AM - Re: FW: VP-X Pro manual (jan)
2. 03:47 AM - Re: VP-X Pro manual (Carlos Trigo)
3. 04:39 AM - Re: VP-X Pro manual (Bob Leffler)
4. 05:34 AM - Re: VP-X Pro manual (Peter Pengilly)
5. 06:48 AM - Re: VP-X Pro manual (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
6. 11:42 AM - Re: VP-X Pro manual (Michael McMahon)
7. 01:29 PM - Re: VP-X Pro manual (Michael McMahon)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Very well said ...
Jan
_____
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Peter
Pengilly
Sent: 05 October 2013 00:01
Subject: Re: FW: AeroElectric-List: VP-X Pro manual
I have two problems with devices such as the VP-X. One of the basic tenents
it is designed around is that electrics are difficult, and so its worth
paying $$$ for a box to do the job. We know that is not true, but if it
were, I don't think the box is smart enough. Second, you are required to
hand over pretty much all control of the system to a software intensive box
where the manufacturer is reluctant to disclose the standards to which the
hardware and software are designed and tested - which to me is not a great
idea. It is marketed very well, but I'm not at all sure it provides value
for money.
The website talks about electronic circuit breakers, and the critical
importance of monitoring the status of your electrical system. To me neither
are really important. Circuit breakers are just a mechanical means of
meeting a requirement to prevent services drawing more current than the
wiring can support. I assume the electronic circuit breakers in a VP-X are
really current monitors - so I guess what is really happening is the box
monitors the expected current draw, compares the actual draw and disconnects
the circuit if the current draw is greater. Its rather condescending to call
these 'electronic circuit breakers', implying that they are an automatic
disconnection function, why not call them what they are , something like an
active current monitor. The box must be fully up and running for the current
monitoring functions to work. So if the box really is smart can't it do
something else than just switch off the circuit? Circuit protection is
important, but breakers are yesterday's way of achieving the aim.
Do we really need to know the status of the electrical system? In a
conventional system we will know if a fuse blows as the service will not
work. Current monitoring is straight forward, and voltage monitoring is
something that just about every box does now. What additional benefit does
the VP-X offer?
It does offer other facilities, such as wig-wags, trim protection and flap
protection. But I don't really want to hand over control of flight controls
(ie the trim) to an unknown box of software. It also claims to disable the
flaps above a certain airspeed - but how is that airspeed sensed and
communicated? Unless that function is implemented in some fairly high
integrity way I would not be too happy to rely on it - would failure at high
airspeed mean that the flaps would deploy at way over the limit speed with
potentially serious results?
I think that using a system such as this would demand a completely separate
endurance bus, probably supported by its own alternator - I see no merit in
hooking 2 alternators into one VP-X box.
For me its too many eggs in one box of unknown fragility.
Apologies for the rather negative post.
Peter
On 04/10/2013 22:50, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
At 11:21 AM 10/4/2013, you wrote:
Here
You can find the VP-X Pro installation and operation manual here
http://verticalpower.com/docs/Install_Ops_Manual_VP-X_P_S.pdf
<http://verticalpower.com/docs/Install_Ops_Manual_VP-X_P_S.pdf>
Information about the Dual Buss feature, but only with one energy source, is
on pages 9 and 10 - paragraph 4.4
Information about using a 2nd alternator is on page 28 - paragraphs 5.9c and
5.9d
Information about wiring back-up circuits is on pages 43 to 46 - paragraph
5.24 and 5.24a through 5.24e
Information about using a 2nd battery is on pages 47 to 49 - paragraphs 5.26
and 5.27
Hope this helps
I'll need to sit down with a brew and pray over
this for a bit . . .
Bob . . .
<http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List>
<http://www.matronics.com/contribution>
<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml"
xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office"
xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word"
xmlns:st1="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html;
charset=us-ascii">
<meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 11 (filtered medium)">
<!--[if !mso]>
<style>
v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style>
<![endif]--><o:SmartTagType
namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
name="PersonName"/>
<!--[if !mso]>
<style>
st1\:*{behavior:url(#default#ieooui) }
</style>
<![endif]-->
<style>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
color:black;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
p
{mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0cm;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0cm;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
color:black;}
pre
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";
color:black;}
span.EmailStyle19
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:Arial;
color:navy;}
@page Section1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 90.0pt 72.0pt 90.0pt;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
-->
</style>
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body bgcolor=white lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=blue>
<div class=Section1>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span
style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>Very well said
…<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span
style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span
style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>Jan<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span
style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<div>
<div class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'><font
size=3
color=black face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;color:windowtext'>
<hr size=2 width="100%" align=center tabindex=-1>
</span></font></div>
<p class=MsoNormal><b><font size=2 color=black
face=Tahoma><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Tahoma;color:windowtext;font-weigh
t:bold'>From:</span></font></b><font
size=2 color=black face=Tahoma><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Tahoma;
color:windowtext'> owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] <b><span
style='font-weight:bold'>On Behalf Of </span></b>Peter Pengilly<br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>Sent:</span></b> 05 October 2013
00:01<br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>To:</span></b> <st1:PersonName
w:st="on">aeroelectric-list@matronics.com</st1:PersonName><br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>Subject:</span></b> Re: FW:
AeroElectric-List: VP-X Pro manual</span></font><font
color=black><span
style='color:windowtext'><o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 color=black face="Times New
Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><font size=3
color=black
face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>I have two
problems with
devices such as the VP-X. One of the basic tenents it is designed
around is
that electrics are difficult, and so its worth paying $$$ for a box to
do the
job. We know that is not true, but if it were, I don't think the box is
smart
enough. Second, you are required to hand over pretty much all control
of the
system to a software intensive box where the manufacturer is reluctant
to
disclose the standards to which the hardware and software are designed
and
tested - which to me is not a great idea. It is marketed very well, but
I'm not
at all sure it provides value for money.<br>
<br>
The website talks about electronic circuit breakers, and the critical
importance of monitoring the status of your electrical system. To me
neither
are really important. Circuit breakers are just a mechanical means of
meeting a
requirement to prevent services drawing more current than the wiring
can
support. I assume the electronic circuit breakers in a VP-X are really
current
monitors - so I guess what is really happening is the box monitors the
expected
current draw, compares the actual draw and disconnects the circuit if
the
current draw is greater. Its rather condescending to call these
'electronic
circuit breakers', implying that they are an automatic disconnection
function,
why not call them what they are , something like an active current
monitor. The
box must be fully up and running for the current monitoring functions
to work.
So if the box really is smart can't it do something else than just
switch off
the circuit? Circuit protection is important, but breakers are
yesterday's way
of achieving the aim.<br>
<br>
Do we really need to know the status of the electrical system? In
a
conventional system we will know if a fuse blows as the service will
not work.
Current monitoring is straight forward, and voltage monitoring is
something
that just about every box does now. What additional benefit does the
VP-X
offer?<br>
<br>
It does offer other facilities, such as wig-wags, trim protection and
flap
protection. But I don't really want to hand over control of flight
controls (ie
the trim) to an unknown box of software. It also claims to disable the
flaps
above a certain airspeed - but how is that airspeed sensed and
communicated?
Unless that function is implemented in some fairly high integrity way I
would
not be too happy to rely on it - would failure at high airspeed mean
that the
flaps would deploy at way over the limit speed with potentially serious
results?<br>
<br>
I think that using a system such as this would demand a completely
separate
endurance bus, probably supported by its own alternator - I see no
merit in
hooking 2 alternators into one VP-X box. <br>
<br>
For me its too many eggs in one box of unknown fragility.<br>
<br>
Apologies for the rather negative post.<br>
<br>
Peter<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 color=black face="Times New
Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt'>On 04/10/2013 22:50, Robert L. Nuckolls, III
wrote:<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'
cite="mid:20131004215041.56950FA3D62@barracuda.matronics.com"
type=cite>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 color=black face="Times New
Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt'>At 11:21 AM 10/4/2013, you wrote:<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 color=black face="Times New
Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt'>Here<br>
<br>
You can find the VP-X Pro installation and operation manual here<br>
<br>
<a
href="http://verticalpower.com/docs/Install_Ops_Manual_VP-X_P_S.pdf"
moz-do-not-send=true>http://verticalpower.com/docs/Install_Ops_Manual_
VP-X_P_S.pdf</a><br>
<br>
Information about the Dual Buss feature, but only with one energy
source, is on
pages 9 and 10 – paragraph 4.4<br>
Information about using a 2<sup>nd</sup> alternator is on page 28
–
paragraphs 5.9c and 5.9d<br>
Information about wiring back-up circuits is on pages 43 to 46 –
paragraph 5.24 and 5.24a through 5.24e<br>
Information about using a 2<sup>nd</sup> battery is on pages 47 to 49
–
paragraphs 5.26 and 5.27<br>
<br>
Hope this helps<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 color=black face="Times New
Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt'><br>
I'll need to sit down with a brew and pray over<br>
this for a bit . . .<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<x-sigsep>
<p><font size=3 color=black face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt'>
<st1:PersonName w:st="on">Bob</st1:PersonName> . . .
<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<pre><b><font size=2 color=black face="Courier New"><span
style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-weight:bold'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></b></pre><pre><
b><font
size=2 color=black face="Courier New"><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-weight:
bold'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></b></pre><pre><b><font size=2
color=black face="Courier New"><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-weight:bold'><o:p> </o:p></span></fo
nt></b></pre></blockquote>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 color=black face="Times New
Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
</x-sigsep><pre><b><font size=2 color=black face="Courier
New"><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-weight:bold'><o:p> </o:p></span></fo
nt></b></pre><pre><b><font
size=2 color=black face="Courier New"><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-weight:
bold'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></b></pre><pre><b><font size=2
color=black face="Courier New"><span
========================
========================
===<o:p></o:p></span></font></b></pre><pre><b><font
size=2 color=black face="Courier New"><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-weight:
AeroElectric-List Email Forum
-<o:p></o:p></span></font></b></pre><pre><b><font
size=2 color=black face="Courier New"><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-weight:
browse<o:p></o:p></span></font></b></pre><pre><b><font
size=2 color=black face="Courier New"><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-weight:
Un/Subscription,<o:p></o:p></span></font></b></pre><pre><b><font
size=2 color=black face="Courier New"><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-weight:
FAQ,<o:p></o:p></span></font></b></pre><pre><b><font
size=2 color=black face="Courier New"><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-weight:
more:<o:p></o:p></span></font></b></pre><pre><b><font
size=2 color=black face="Courier New"><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-weight:
color=black
face="Courier New"><span
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List">http://www
.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List</a><o:p></o:p></span></font>
</b></pre><pre><b><font
size=2 color=black face="Courier New"><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-weight:
color=black
face="Courier New"><span
========================
========================
===<o:p></o:p></span></font></b></pre><pre><b><font
size=2 color=black face="Courier New"><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-weight:
nbsp; - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS
-<o:p></o:p></span></font></b></pre><pre><b><font
size=2 color=black face="Courier New"><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-weight:
Forums!<o:p></o:p></span></font></b></pre><pre><b><font
size=2 color=black face="Courier New"><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-weight:
color=black
face="Courier New"><span
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com</a><o:p
></o:p></span></font></b></pre><pre><b><font
size=2 color=black face="Courier New"><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-weight:
color=black
face="Courier New"><span
========================
========================
===<o:p></o:p></span></font></b></pre><pre><b><font
size=2 color=black face="Courier New"><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-weight:
nbsp; - List Contribution Web Site
-<o:p></o:p></span></font></b></pre><pre><b><font
size=2 color=black face="Courier New"><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-weight:
support!<o:p></o:p></span></font></b></pre><pre><b><font
size=2 color=black face="Courier New"><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-weight:
nbsp; &
nbsp; -Matt Dralle, List
Admin.<o:p></o:p></span></font></b></pre><pre><b><font
size=2 color=black face="Courier New"><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-weight:
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/
contribution</a><o:p></o:p></span></font></b></pre><pre><b><font
size=2 color=black face="Courier New"><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-weight:
========================
==============<o:p></o:p></span></font></b><
/pre><pre><b><font
size=2 color=black face="Courier New"><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-weight:
bold'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></b></pre></div>
<pre><b><font size=2 color="#000000" face="courier new,courier">
</b></font></pre></body></html>
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: VP-X Pro manual |
Hi Pete
Is everything Ok with you? I hope so.
I obviously respect your opinions about this box, I even agree with most of y
our comments...
But it was (is) not my intention to start a discussion on the VP-X
Regards
Carlos
Enviado do meu iPhone
No dia 05/10/2013, =C3-s 00:01, Peter Pengilly <peter@sportingaero.com> es
creveu:
> I have two problems with devices such as the VP-X. One of the basic tenent
s it is designed around is that electrics are difficult, and so its worth pa
ying $$$ for a box to do the job. We know that is not true, but if it we
re, I don't think the box is smart enough. Second, you are required to hand o
ver pretty much all control of the system to a software intensive box where t
he manufacturer is reluctant to disclose the standards to which the hardware
and software are designed and tested - which to me is not a great idea. It i
s marketed very well, but I'm not at all sure it provides value for money.
>
> The website talks about electronic circuit breakers, and the critical impo
rtance of monitoring the status of your electrical system. To me neither are
really important. Circuit breakers are just a mechanical means of meeti
ng a requirement to prevent services drawing more current than the wiring ca
n support. I assume the electronic circuit breakers in a VP-X are really cur
rent monitors - so I guess what is really happening is the box monitors the e
xpected current draw, compares the actual draw and disconnects the circuit i
f the current draw is greater. Its rather condescending to call these 'elect
ronic circuit breakers', implying that they are an automatic disconnection f
unction, why not call them what they are , something like an active current m
onitor. The box must be fully up and running for the current monitoring func
tions to work. So if the box really is smart can't it do something else than
just switch off the circuit? Circuit protection is important, but breakers a
re yesterday's way of achieving the aim.
>
> Do we really need to know the status of the electrical system? In a conve
ntional system we will know if a fuse blows as the service will not work. Cu
rrent monitoring is straight forward, and voltage monitoring is something th
at just about every box does now. What additional benefit does the VP-X offe
r?
>
> It does offer other facilities, such as wig-wags, trim protection and flap
protection. But I don't really want to hand over control of flight cont
rols (ie the trim) to an unknown box of software. It also claims to disable t
he flaps above a certain airspeed - but how is that airspeed sensed and comm
unicated? Unless that function is implemented in some fairly high integrity w
ay I would not be too happy to rely on it - would failure at high airspeed m
ean that the flaps would deploy at way over the limit speed with potentially
serious results?
>
> I think that using a system such as this would demand a completely separat
e endurance bus, probably supported by its own alternator - I see no merit i
n hooking 2 alternators into one VP-X box.
>
> For me its too many eggs in one box of unknown fragility.
>
> Apologies for the rather negative post.
>
> Peter
>
>
> On 04/10/2013 22:50, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>> At 11:21 AM 10/4/2013, you wrote:
>>> Here
>>>
>>> You can find the VP-X Pro installation and operation manual here
>>>
>>> http://verticalpower.com/docs/Install_Ops_Manual_VP-X_P_S.pdf
>>>
>>> Information about the Dual Buss feature, but only with one energy source
, is on pages 9 and 10 =93 paragraph 4.4
>>> Information about using a 2nd alternator is on page 28 =93 paragra
phs 5.9c and 5.9d
>>> Information about wiring back-up circuits is on pages 43 to 46 =93
paragraph 5.24 and 5.24a through 5.24e
>>> Information about using a 2nd battery is on pages 47 to 49 =93 par
agraphs 5.26 and 5.27
>>>
>>> Hope this helps
>>
>> I'll need to sit down with a brew and pray over
>> this for a bit . . .
>>
>>
>> Bob . . .
>>
>
>
>
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
>
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: VP-X Pro manual |
I disagree, it's just an example of fear mongering from somebody that hasn't
taken the time to understand how the unit works. Everyone is entitled to t
heir opinions. I happen to disagree with both Jan and Penguilly. And yes, I
do have one of these installed in my RV-10.
Value delivered is a personal opinion. Clearly you don't understand the val
ue. So don't put one in your aircraft. You don't need to publicly bash t
he product.
So it sounds like you aren't installing an EFIS or an autopilot either. The
y have software that control critical systems without letting you know what s
tandards they meet, unless you are installing TSO'd units. What about elect
ronic ignition? Do you trust their firmware? Where do you draw the line?
In regards to Vertical,Power, has there been any incidents documented that w
ould indicate that their systems don't operate as advertised? I'm certainl
y not aware of any.
As far as debating how individual functions work, I'm not interesting in spe
nding my time to do so. Clearly, your mind is made up and it's probably impo
ssible to change it.
But I will highlight a couple. The unit is integrated into your EFIS. Data
is bidirectionally passed. Your argument would imply that you don't trust
the airspeed displayed on your EFIS either.
Airspeed control and trim runaway is a very important attribute in faster ai
rcraft. There are many documented incidents that caused much strife in the l
ife of a PIC when a trim servo decided to go full deflection, or moved at a h
igh speed when the aircraft is at cruise speed. Products like Vertical Power
, Safety Trim, FPS-Plus Reflex, and others prevent these type of mishaps fro
m happening. These products control the movement, speed, and duration the s
ervos can operate. Your argument implies you don't trust these products eit
her. This may not be an issue in your aircraft, but it is in many.
In these days of electrically dependent aircraft (i.e. Dual electronic ignit
ion, Subaru (sp?) E-6, etc) you may indeed want more detailed information ab
out the components that comprise your electrical system.
I'm not interested in getting into a tit for tat debate. I won't engage any
additional responses. Like I mentioned previously, we can all form our opin
ions and make personal decisions based on them. Bashing products without fu
lly understanding them isn't a good use of anyone's time.
For those sitting on the sidelines, I highly recommend giving Marc Ausman at
Vertical Power a call. He or one of his staff have always been more than h
appy to explain their products. I too had some perceptions that weren't tru
e. Marc was willing and took the time to have dialogue to explain all the p
ro and cons, as well as the companies design goals for each feature. It too
k awhile, but after many dialogues with Marc, I became a customer and am ver
y satisfied with the product.
Sent from my iPad
> On Oct 5, 2013, at 5:14 AM, jan <jan@claver.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> Very well said
>
> Jan
>
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelect
ric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Peter Pengilly
> Sent: 05 October 2013 00:01
> To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: FW: AeroElectric-List: VP-X Pro manual
>
> I have two problems with devices such as the VP-X. One of the basic tenent
s it is designed around is that electrics are difficult, and so its worth pa
ying $$$ for a box to do the job. We know that is not true, but if it were, I
don't think the box is smart enough. Second, you are required to hand over p
retty much all control of the system to a software intensive box where the m
anufacturer is reluctant to disclose the standards to which the hardware and
software are designed and tested - which to me is not a great idea. It is m
arketed very well, but I'm not at all sure it provides value for money.
>
> The website talks about electronic circuit breakers, and the critical impo
rtance of monitoring the status of your electrical system. To me neither are
really important. Circuit breakers are just a mechanical means of meeting a
requirement to prevent services drawing more current than the wiring can su
pport. I assume the electronic circuit breakers in a VP-X are really current
monitors - so I guess what is really happening is the box monitors the expe
cted current draw, compares the actual draw and disconnects the circuit if t
he current draw is greater. Its rather condescending to call these 'electron
ic circuit breakers', implying that they are an automatic disconnection func
tion, why not call them what they are , something like an active current mon
itor. The box must be fully up and running for the current monitoring functi
ons to work. So if the box really is smart can't it do something else than j
ust switch off the circuit? Circuit protection is important, but breakers ar
e yesterday's way of achieving the aim.
>
> Do we really need to know the status of the electrical system? In a conve
ntional system we will know if a fuse blows as the service will not work. Cu
rrent monitoring is straight forward, and voltage monitoring is something th
at just about every box does now. What additional benefit does the VP-X offe
r?
>
> It does offer other facilities, such as wig-wags, trim protection and flap
protection. But I don't really want to hand over control of flight controls
(ie the trim) to an unknown box of software. It also claims to disable the f
laps above a certain airspeed - but how is that airspeed sensed and communic
ated? Unless that function is implemented in some fairly high integrity way I
would not be too happy to rely on it - would failure at high airspeed mean t
hat the flaps would deploy at way over the limit speed with potentially seri
ous results?
>
> I think that using a system such as this would demand a completely separat
e endurance bus, probably supported by its own alternator - I see no merit i
n hooking 2 alternators into one VP-X box.
>
> For me its too many eggs in one box of unknown fragility.
>
> Apologies for the rather negative post.
>
> Peter
>
>
>> On 04/10/2013 22:50, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>> At 11:21 AM 10/4/2013, you wrote:
>>
>> Here
>>
>> You can find the VP-X Pro installation and operation manual here
>>
>> http://verticalpower.com/docs/Install_Ops_Manual_VP-X_P_S.pdf
>>
>> Information about the Dual Buss feature, but only with one energy source,
is on pages 9 and 10 =93 paragraph 4.4
>> Information about using a 2nd alternator is on page 28 =93 paragrap
hs 5.9c and 5.9d
>> Information about wiring back-up circuits is on pages 43 to 46 =93 p
aragraph 5.24 and 5.24a through 5.24e
>> Information about using a 2nd battery is on pages 47 to 49 =93 para
graphs 5.26 and 5.27
>>
>> Hope this helps
>>
>> I'll need to sit down with a brew and pray over
>> this for a bit . . .
>>
>>
>>
>> Bob . . .
>>
>
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
> http://forums.matronics.com
>
>
>
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: VP-X Pro manual |
Boab,
You are entitled to disagree, but please don't assume what other people
know.
You are right it is a matter of personal cost/benefit assessment. In my
view an EFIS, autopilot and electronic ignition all offer worthwhile
benefits, and are installed in my aircraft. My electrical system uses fuses.
To understand the risk in believing the EFIS presentation of airspeed
(or any other parameter), or allowing an airspeed value to be used
elsewhere in the system requires some knowledge of the potential
corruptions. Within a well designed EFIS the risk of corruption is
relatively low, and the the possible consequences manageable is a
mechanical ASI is provided close by. Risk of corruption when passing
data across a network is greater, and the consequence of corrupted data
much more serious for an autoflap system. That's a risk I'm not prepared
to take.
There is a risk in using any un-certified avionics box (over and above
the background risks we all run in flying). I think it is important to
objectively understand the risks that we are taking and take them
knowingly - not run risks because we just don't realise what we are doing.
Boxes like Safety Trim provide their functions in a way that enables the
pilot to shut it down quickly in the event of malfunction.
I thought a lot before posting as I knew that a response such as yours
was sure to be posted quickly afterwards. My intention is not to 'bash'
the VP-X, or any other product, but to try to help people here better
understand how to use it (or not). In order to understand how best to
arrange a system it is necessary to fully understand the capabilities of
the equipment in use. As far as I am aware the VP-X does not promote its
ability to support graceful degradation of capability. Therefore I would
suggest a separate busbar, probably supported by a secondary alternator,
that supplied all the important electrical items. I too have spent some
time talking with Mr Ausman.
Peter
On 05/10/2013 12:38, Bob Leffler wrote:
> I disagree, it's just an example of fear mongering from somebody that
> hasn't taken the time to understand how the unit works. Everyone is
> entitled to their opinions. I happen to disagree with both Jan and
> Penguilly. And yes, I do have one of these installed in my RV-10.
>
> Value delivered is a personal opinion. Clearly you don't understand
> the value. So don't put one in your aircraft. You don't need to
> publicly bash the product.
>
> So it sounds like you aren't installing an EFIS or an autopilot
> either. They have software that control critical systems without
> letting you know what standards they meet, unless you are installing
> TSO'd units. What about electronic ignition? Do you trust their
> firmware? Where do you draw the line?
>
> In regards to Vertical,Power, has there been any incidents documented
> that would indicate that their systems don't operate as advertised?
> I'm certainly not aware of any.
>
> As far as debating how individual functions work, I'm not interesting
> in spending my time to do so. Clearly, your mind is made up and it's
> probably impossible to change it.
>
> But I will highlight a couple. The unit is integrated into your EFIS.
> Data is bidirectionally passed. Your argument would imply that you
> don't trust the airspeed displayed on your EFIS either.
>
> Airspeed control and trim runaway is a very important attribute in
> faster aircraft. There are many documented incidents that caused much
> strife in the life of a PIC when a trim servo decided to go full
> deflection, or moved at a high speed when the aircraft is at cruise
> speed. Products like Vertical Power, Safety Trim, FPS-Plus Reflex, and
> others prevent these type of mishaps from happening. These products
> control the movement, speed, and duration the servos can operate.
> Your argument implies you don't trust these products either. This
> may not be an issue in your aircraft, but it is in many.
>
> In these days of electrically dependent aircraft (i.e. Dual electronic
> ignition, Subaru (sp?) E-6, etc) you may indeed want more detailed
> information about the components that comprise your electrical system.
>
> I'm not interested in getting into a tit for tat debate. I won't
> engage any additional responses. Like I mentioned previously, we can
> all form our opinions and make personal decisions based on them.
> Bashing products without fully understanding them isn't a good use of
> anyone's time.
>
> For those sitting on the sidelines, I highly recommend giving Marc
> Ausman at Vertical Power a call. He or one of his staff have always
> been more than happy to explain their products. I too had some
> perceptions that weren't true. Marc was willing and took the time to
> have dialogue to explain all the pro and cons, as well as the
> companies design goals for each feature. It took awhile, but after
> many dialogues with Marc, I became a customer and am very satisfied
> with the product.
>
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Oct 5, 2013, at 5:14 AM, jan <jan@claver.demon.co.uk
> <mailto:jan@claver.demon.co.uk>> wrote:
>
>> Very well said
>>
>> Jan
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> *From:*owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
>> <mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com>
>> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] *On Behalf Of
>> *Peter Pengilly
>> *Sent:* 05 October 2013 00:01
>> *To:* aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
>> <mailto:aeroelectric-list@matronics.com>
>> *Subject:* Re: FW: AeroElectric-List: VP-X Pro manual
>>
>> I have two problems with devices such as the VP-X. One of the basic
>> tenents it is designed around is that electrics are difficult, and so
>> its worth paying $$$ for a box to do the job. We know that is not
>> true, but if it were, I don't think the box is smart enough. Second,
>> you are required to hand over pretty much all control of the system
>> to a software intensive box where the manufacturer is reluctant to
>> disclose the standards to which the hardware and software are
>> designed and tested - which to me is not a great idea. It is marketed
>> very well, but I'm not at all sure it provides value for money.
>>
>> The website talks about electronic circuit breakers, and the critical
>> importance of monitoring the status of your electrical system. To me
>> neither are really important. Circuit breakers are just a mechanical
>> means of meeting a requirement to prevent services drawing more
>> current than the wiring can support. I assume the electronic circuit
>> breakers in a VP-X are really current monitors - so I guess what is
>> really happening is the box monitors the expected current draw,
>> compares the actual draw and disconnects the circuit if the current
>> draw is greater. Its rather condescending to call these 'electronic
>> circuit breakers', implying that they are an automatic disconnection
>> function, why not call them what they are , something like an active
>> current monitor. The box must be fully up and running for the current
>> monitoring functions to work. So if the box really is smart can't it
>> do something else than just switch off the circuit? Circuit
>> protection is important, but breakers are yesterday's way of
>> achieving the aim.
>>
>> Do we really need to know the status of the electrical system? In a
>> conventional system we will know if a fuse blows as the service will
>> not work. Current monitoring is straight forward, and voltage
>> monitoring is something that just about every box does now. What
>> additional benefit does the VP-X offer?
>>
>> It does offer other facilities, such as wig-wags, trim protection and
>> flap protection. But I don't really want to hand over control of
>> flight controls (ie the trim) to an unknown box of software. It also
>> claims to disable the flaps above a certain airspeed - but how is
>> that airspeed sensed and communicated? Unless that function is
>> implemented in some fairly high integrity way I would not be too
>> happy to rely on it - would failure at high airspeed mean that the
>> flaps would deploy at way over the limit speed with potentially
>> serious results?
>>
>> I think that using a system such as this would demand a completely
>> separate endurance bus, probably supported by its own alternator - I
>> see no merit in hooking 2 alternators into one VP-X box.
>>
>> For me its too many eggs in one box of unknown fragility.
>>
>> Apologies for the rather negative post.
>>
>> Peter
>>
>> On 04/10/2013 22:50, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>>
>>> At 11:21 AM 10/4/2013, you wrote:
>>>
>>> Here
>>>
>>> You can find the VP-X Pro installation and operation manual here
>>>
>>> http://verticalpower.com/docs/Install_Ops_Manual_VP-X_P_S.pdf
>>>
>>> Information about the Dual Buss feature, but only with one energy
>>> source, is on pages 9 and 10 paragraph 4.4
>>> Information about using a 2^nd alternator is on page 28 paragraphs
>>> 5.9c and 5.9d
>>> Information about wiring back-up circuits is on pages 43 to 46
>>> paragraph 5.24 and 5.24a through 5.24e
>>> Information about using a 2^nd battery is on pages 47 to 49
>>> paragraphs 5.26 and 5.27
>>>
>>> Hope this helps
>>>
>>>
>>> I'll need to sit down with a brew and pray over
>>> this for a bit . . .
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Bob . . .
>>>
>>> * *
>>> * *
>>> * *
>>
>> * *
>> * *
>> **
>> **
>> **
>> *http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List*
>> **
>> *http://forums.matronics.com*
>> **
>> **
>> **
>> * *
>> *
>>
>> D============================================
>> lectric-List"">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
>> D============================================
>> //forums.matronics.com
>> D============================================
>> ot;">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>> D============================================
>>
>> *
> *
>
>
> *
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: VP-X Pro manual |
At 06:38 AM 10/5/2013, you wrote:
I disagree, it's just an example of fear mongering from somebody that
hasn't taken the time to understand how the unit works. Everyone is
entitled to their opinions.
<snip>
Bashing products without fully understanding them isn't a good use
of anyone's time.
For those sitting on the sidelines, I highly recommend giving Marc
Ausman at Vertical Power a call. He or one of his staff have always
been more than happy to explain their products.
This isn't about 'bashing', 'fear mongering' or
taking the honorable Mr. Ausman at his word. It'a not
about erecting silos around 'personal opinions'.
It's about the science behind the art of crafting the
simplest, most cost effective system that meets user design
goals while striving for the least risk.
Most pilots who walk into the showroom for a Bonanza
don't have the first notion of what this is all about . . .
they are wrapped in what promises to be a protective
shell crafted from the ideas that bubble up from
FAR23, ISO9000, DO160, DO178, FAR91, FAR43, and a
library of documents prepared mostly by people who
have never piloted much less owned an airplane or
any similarly un-forgiving vehicle. The owner/operators
of TC aircraft are enticed by the siren call of
golden policy and procedures manuals, micro-managed
work instructions and qualification specs by the boat
load . . . a notion that says, "anything produced to
such demanding requirements must be the very best anyone
knows how to do." Ergo it follows that, "If it's the
very best THEY know how to do, then it must be
appropriate to my NEEDS. Sure, it has everything
I WANT and more . . . but surely, somewhere in all that
thrashing of paper, training of workers and threats
for failure to perform, my NEEDS are also met."
The first time I offered up the ideas in Chapter 17
(System Reliability) was at OSH. I gave a presentation
in the tents that explored the notion of just what one
NEEDS to go flying with a very low probability of
breaking a sweat before putting one's feet back on
the ground.
For those who don't have the book handy, I've
copied Chapter 17 to the website here
http://tinyurl.com/ncrju9x
This chapter starts with a story. A Dark-n-Stormy
Night story taken from the pages of AOPA Pilot
Magazine. The editors of the General Aviation
journals have long believed that publishing such
stories offered the readers a service . . . a sort
of 'forewarned is forearmed' notion. But never have
I seen the same publication produce an analysis
of such stories for the purpose of gleaning understanding
that comes with being truly forewarned.
I spent much of my career reading accident reports,
sifting through accident photos, and combing depositions
of witnesses to sift out nuggets of fact that assembled
into a picture of the physics that defined events in
an accident. Physics that may have challenged the
understanding of the victims and presented them with
a no-win situation . . . NOT necessarily because the
machinery was lacking but because the operators were
OVERWHELMED with options not understood and therefore
not exercised.
I am reminded of the plight of JFK Jr. who's life
was ended (along with passengers) when a very well
equipped airplane hit the water during a flight into
not terribly challenging weather.
http://tinyurl.com/ofcn9en
Peter's concerns are not about the ability of V-Power,
EXP-Bus,
http://tinyurl.com/o828jj8
or even Greg Ricther's power distribution proposals
http://tinyurl.com/omnuypr
to FUNCTION as advertised, it's about probabilities
of failure to function and the challenges such
failures place on the pilot as an operator of the
airplane and the owner as the one who has invest
$time$ to fix it.
This is what Failure Modes Effects Analysis is
all about. It's a search for a minimum expenditure
of value to craft a low parts-count system that offers
no insurmountable risks due to a failure of any one part.
A system that encourages a simple Plan-B response to
such failures such that the pilot is not distracted
from doing pilot-things that keep him and his airplane
from flying into hard or wet places.
Most of my career was conducted with one foot in
the TC world; the other in the OBAM world. I would
LOVE to learn to fly a Beechjet or a Premier . . .
but taking family a friends for a ride in these
machines is another matter . . . its a PROFESSION
to achieve the levels of understanding that make
me as safe in a Premier as I would be in say a
steam-guage C172. It has nothing to do with the
relative capabilities of the airplane and everything
to do with potential for distracting challenges while
airborne.
The greatest challenge for pilot management of risk
arises from mission planning. Yeah, that Premier
can be launched into some pretty hairy flight
conditions with confidence . . . it has lots of
bells and whistles. Conditions I would not even
consider in my C-172. What's the risk? After all,
all those goodies in the Premier have been presided
over by the largest bureaucracy ever assembled
in the free-market exchange of value . . . what
could go wrong?
http://tinyurl.com/q66wu2z
Peter is simply reminding us that for every box
with a connector on it, things going on inside
are of interest to us for the purposes of achieving
understanding necessary to craft a comfortable
Plan-B when ANYTHING breaks. The challenge for
crafting an UNDERSTOOD Plan-B is made harder
when things that go on INSIDE a black box are
beyond your understanding and control.
Whether you're sitting in the left seat of a
Premier or an RV10, all that glass in front of
you presents both a challenge and a duty
to yourself and anyone in the airplane with
you. This isn't a matter of opinion, it's where
the rubber hits the road in the marriage between
you and your machine . . . and risks for becoming
a passenger instead of a pilot of that machine.
See:
http://tinyurl.com/oz9klsx
http://tinyurl.com/pdqxfjm
It takes a lot of time and data beyond the "peek
through the journalistic/bureaucratic knothole"
to understand how these pilots became passengers
in their airplanes.
What we do here on the List is offer an opportunity
to explore as much understanding, confidence and
competence in YOUR airplane as you're willing and
able to seek out an acquire.
A guiding principal of my creative endeavors was
offered by a smart cookie centuries ago when he
suggested that it is wise to avoid making a thing
unnecessarily complex.
http://tinyurl.com/n9ng
I find comfort in the notion that a fuse, some
wire and a switch represents a rather simple,
well understood means by which some electro-whizzy
can be controlled at very low risk with a lucid
failure modes effects analysis.
Bob . . .
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
I found Mr. Leffler=99s post to be one man=99s
thought-provoking opinion, I didn=99t read it as bashing. I
appreciate it when someone makes me think of things I haven=99t
considered, ESPECIALLY when it=99s related to potential risks in
aviation. I=99m not looking to get into a tit-for-tat, but I for
one appreciated posts like Mr. Leffler=99s when they=99re
rational and well-explained, as I thought his was. I hope to continue
to see such posts here.
Michael
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Peter
Pengilly
Sent: Saturday, October 5, 2013 5:34 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: VP-X Pro manual
Boab,
You are entitled to disagree, but please don't assume what other people
know.
You are right it is a matter of personal cost/benefit assessment. In my
view an EFIS, autopilot and electronic ignition all offer worthwhile
benefits, and are installed in my aircraft. My electrical system uses
fuses.
To understand the risk in believing the EFIS presentation of airspeed
(or any other parameter), or allowing an airspeed value to be used
elsewhere in the system requires some knowledge of the potential
corruptions. Within a well designed EFIS the risk of corruption is
relatively low, and the the possible consequences manageable is a
mechanical ASI is provided close by. Risk of corruption when passing
data across a network is greater, and the consequence of corrupted data
much more serious for an autoflap system. That's a risk I'm not prepared
to take.
There is a risk in using any un-certified avionics box (over and above
the background risks we all run in flying). I think it is important to
objectively understand the risks that we are taking and take them
knowingly - not run risks because we just don't realise what we are
doing.
Boxes like Safety Trim provide their functions in a way that enables the
pilot to shut it down quickly in the event of malfunction.
I thought a lot before posting as I knew that a response such as yours
was sure to be posted quickly afterwards. My intention is not to 'bash'
the VP-X, or any other product, but to try to help people here better
understand how to use it (or not). In order to understand how best to
arrange a system it is necessary to fully understand the capabilities of
the equipment in use. As far as I am aware the VP-X does not promote its
ability to support graceful degradation of capability. Therefore I would
suggest a separate busbar, probably supported by a secondary alternator,
that supplied all the important electrical items. I too have spent some
time talking with Mr Ausman.
Peter
On 05/10/2013 12:38, Bob Leffler wrote:
I disagree, it's just an example of fear mongering from somebody that
hasn't taken the time to understand how the unit works. Everyone is
entitled to their opinions. I happen to disagree with both Jan and
Penguilly. And yes, I do have one of these installed in my RV-10.
Value delivered is a personal opinion. Clearly you don't understand the
value. So don't put one in your aircraft. You don't need to publicly
bash the product.
So it sounds like you aren't installing an EFIS or an autopilot either.
They have software that control critical systems without letting you
know what standards they meet, unless you are installing TSO'd units.
What about electronic ignition? Do you trust their firmware? Where
do you draw the line?
In regards to Vertical,Power, has there been any incidents documented
that would indicate that their systems don't operate as advertised?
I'm certainly not aware of any.
As far as debating how individual functions work, I'm not interesting in
spending my time to do so. Clearly, your mind is made up and it's
probably impossible to change it.
But I will highlight a couple. The unit is integrated into your EFIS.
Data is bidirectionally passed. Your argument would imply that you
don't trust the airspeed displayed on your EFIS either.
Airspeed control and trim runaway is a very important attribute in
faster aircraft. There are many documented incidents that caused much
strife in the life of a PIC when a trim servo decided to go full
deflection, or moved at a high speed when the aircraft is at cruise
speed. Products like Vertical Power, Safety Trim, FPS-Plus Reflex, and
others prevent these type of mishaps from happening. These products
control the movement, speed, and duration the servos can operate. Your
argument implies you don't trust these products either. This may not be
an issue in your aircraft, but it is in many.
In these days of electrically dependent aircraft (i.e. Dual electronic
ignition, Subaru (sp?) E-6, etc) you may indeed want more detailed
information about the components that comprise your electrical system.
I'm not interested in getting into a tit for tat debate. I won't engage
any additional responses. Like I mentioned previously, we can all form
our opinions and make personal decisions based on them. Bashing
products without fully understanding them isn't a good use of anyone's
time.
For those sitting on the sidelines, I highly recommend giving Marc
Ausman at Vertical Power a call. He or one of his staff have always
been more than happy to explain their products. I too had some
perceptions that weren't true. Marc was willing and took the time to
have dialogue to explain all the pro and cons, as well as the companies
design goals for each feature. It took awhile, but after many dialogues
with Marc, I became a customer and am very satisfied with the product.
Sent from my iPad
On Oct 5, 2013, at 5:14 AM, jan <jan@claver.demon.co.uk> wrote:
Very well said
Jan
_____
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Peter
Pengilly
Sent: 05 October 2013 00:01
Subject: Re: FW: AeroElectric-List: VP-X Pro manual
I have two problems with devices such as the VP-X. One of the basic
tenents it is designed around is that electrics are difficult, and so
its worth paying $$$ for a box to do the job. We know that is not true,
but if it were, I don't think the box is smart enough. Second, you are
required to hand over pretty much all control of the system to a
software intensive box where the manufacturer is reluctant to disclose
the standards to which the hardware and software are designed and tested
- which to me is not a great idea. It is marketed very well, but I'm not
at all sure it provides value for money.
The website talks about electronic circuit breakers, and the critical
importance of monitoring the status of your electrical system. To me
neither are really important. Circuit breakers are just a mechanical
means of meeting a requirement to prevent services drawing more current
than the wiring can support. I assume the electronic circuit breakers in
a VP-X are really current monitors - so I guess what is really happening
is the box monitors the expected current draw, compares the actual draw
and disconnects the circuit if the current draw is greater. Its rather
condescending to call these 'electronic circuit breakers', implying that
they are an automatic disconnection function, why not call them what
they are , something like an active current monitor. The box must be
fully up and running for the current monitoring functions to work. So if
the box really is smart can't it do something else than just switch off
the circuit? Circuit protection is important, but breakers are
yesterday's way of achieving the aim.
Do we really need to know the status of the electrical system? In a
conventional system we will know if a fuse blows as the service will not
work. Current monitoring is straight forward, and voltage monitoring is
something that just about every box does now. What additional benefit
does the VP-X offer?
It does offer other facilities, such as wig-wags, trim protection and
flap protection. But I don't really want to hand over control of flight
controls (ie the trim) to an unknown box of software. It also claims to
disable the flaps above a certain airspeed - but how is that airspeed
sensed and communicated? Unless that function is implemented in some
fairly high integrity way I would not be too happy to rely on it - would
failure at high airspeed mean that the flaps would deploy at way over
the limit speed with potentially serious results?
I think that using a system such as this would demand a completely
separate endurance bus, probably supported by its own alternator - I see
no merit in hooking 2 alternators into one VP-X box.
For me its too many eggs in one box of unknown fragility.
Apologies for the rather negative post.
Peter
On 04/10/2013 22:50, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
At 11:21 AM 10/4/2013, you wrote:
Here
You can find the VP-X Pro installation and operation manual here
http://verticalpower.com/docs/Install_Ops_Manual_VP-X_P_S.pdf
Information about the Dual Buss feature, but only with one energy
source, is on pages 9 and 10 =93 paragraph 4.4
Information about using a 2nd alternator is on page 28 =93
paragraphs 5.9c and 5.9d
Information about wiring back-up circuits is on pages 43 to 46 =93
paragraph 5.24 and 5.24a through 5.24e
Information about using a 2nd battery is on pages 47 to 49 =93
paragraphs 5.26 and 5.27
Hope this helps
I'll need to sit down with a brew and pray over
this for a bit . . .
Bob . . .
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
http://forums.matronics.com
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D
lectric-List"">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D
//forums.matronics.com
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D
ot;">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Oops! I meant Mr. Pengilly=99s original post, not Mr.
Leffler=99s response. Sorry for the confusion.
From: Michael McMahon [mailto:mike@aeromotogroup.com]
Sent: Saturday, October 5, 2013 11:41 AM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: VP-X Pro manual
I found Mr. Leffler=99s post to be one man=99s
thought-provoking opinion, I didn=99t read it as bashing. I
appreciate it when someone makes me think of things I haven=99t
considered, ESPECIALLY when it=99s related to potential risks in
aviation. I=99m not looking to get into a tit-for-tat, but I for
one appreciated posts like Mr. Leffler=99s when they=99re
rational and well-explained, as I thought his was. I hope to continue
to see such posts here.
Michael
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Peter
Pengilly
Sent: Saturday, October 5, 2013 5:34 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: VP-X Pro manual
Boab,
You are entitled to disagree, but please don't assume what other people
know.
You are right it is a matter of personal cost/benefit assessment. In my
view an EFIS, autopilot and electronic ignition all offer worthwhile
benefits, and are installed in my aircraft. My electrical system uses
fuses.
To understand the risk in believing the EFIS presentation of airspeed
(or any other parameter), or allowing an airspeed value to be used
elsewhere in the system requires some knowledge of the potential
corruptions. Within a well designed EFIS the risk of corruption is
relatively low, and the the possible consequences manageable is a
mechanical ASI is provided close by. Risk of corruption when passing
data across a network is greater, and the consequence of corrupted data
much more serious for an autoflap system. That's a risk I'm not prepared
to take.
There is a risk in using any un-certified avionics box (over and above
the background risks we all run in flying). I think it is important to
objectively understand the risks that we are taking and take them
knowingly - not run risks because we just don't realise what we are
doing.
Boxes like Safety Trim provide their functions in a way that enables the
pilot to shut it down quickly in the event of malfunction.
I thought a lot before posting as I knew that a response such as yours
was sure to be posted quickly afterwards. My intention is not to 'bash'
the VP-X, or any other product, but to try to help people here better
understand how to use it (or not). In order to understand how best to
arrange a system it is necessary to fully understand the capabilities of
the equipment in use. As far as I am aware the VP-X does not promote its
ability to support graceful degradation of capability. Therefore I would
suggest a separate busbar, probably supported by a secondary alternator,
that supplied all the important electrical items. I too have spent some
time talking with Mr Ausman.
Peter
On 05/10/2013 12:38, Bob Leffler wrote:
I disagree, it's just an example of fear mongering from somebody that
hasn't taken the time to understand how the unit works. Everyone is
entitled to their opinions. I happen to disagree with both Jan and
Penguilly. And yes, I do have one of these installed in my RV-10.
Value delivered is a personal opinion. Clearly you don't understand the
value. So don't put one in your aircraft. You don't need to publicly
bash the product.
So it sounds like you aren't installing an EFIS or an autopilot either.
They have software that control critical systems without letting you
know what standards they meet, unless you are installing TSO'd units.
What about electronic ignition? Do you trust their firmware? Where
do you draw the line?
In regards to Vertical,Power, has there been any incidents documented
that would indicate that their systems don't operate as advertised?
I'm certainly not aware of any.
As far as debating how individual functions work, I'm not interesting in
spending my time to do so. Clearly, your mind is made up and it's
probably impossible to change it.
But I will highlight a couple. The unit is integrated into your EFIS.
Data is bidirectionally passed. Your argument would imply that you
don't trust the airspeed displayed on your EFIS either.
Airspeed control and trim runaway is a very important attribute in
faster aircraft. There are many documented incidents that caused much
strife in the life of a PIC when a trim servo decided to go full
deflection, or moved at a high speed when the aircraft is at cruise
speed. Products like Vertical Power, Safety Trim, FPS-Plus Reflex, and
others prevent these type of mishaps from happening. These products
control the movement, speed, and duration the servos can operate. Your
argument implies you don't trust these products either. This may not be
an issue in your aircraft, but it is in many.
In these days of electrically dependent aircraft (i.e. Dual electronic
ignition, Subaru (sp?) E-6, etc) you may indeed want more detailed
information about the components that comprise your electrical system.
I'm not interested in getting into a tit for tat debate. I won't engage
any additional responses. Like I mentioned previously, we can all form
our opinions and make personal decisions based on them. Bashing
products without fully understanding them isn't a good use of anyone's
time.
For those sitting on the sidelines, I highly recommend giving Marc
Ausman at Vertical Power a call. He or one of his staff have always
been more than happy to explain their products. I too had some
perceptions that weren't true. Marc was willing and took the time to
have dialogue to explain all the pro and cons, as well as the companies
design goals for each feature. It took awhile, but after many dialogues
with Marc, I became a customer and am very satisfied with the product.
Sent from my iPad
On Oct 5, 2013, at 5:14 AM, jan <jan@claver.demon.co.uk> wrote:
Very well said
Jan
_____
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Peter
Pengilly
Sent: 05 October 2013 00:01
Subject: Re: FW: AeroElectric-List: VP-X Pro manual
I have two problems with devices such as the VP-X. One of the basic
tenents it is designed around is that electrics are difficult, and so
its worth paying $$$ for a box to do the job. We know that is not true,
but if it were, I don't think the box is smart enough. Second, you are
required to hand over pretty much all control of the system to a
software intensive box where the manufacturer is reluctant to disclose
the standards to which the hardware and software are designed and tested
- which to me is not a great idea. It is marketed very well, but I'm not
at all sure it provides value for money.
The website talks about electronic circuit breakers, and the critical
importance of monitoring the status of your electrical system. To me
neither are really important. Circuit breakers are just a mechanical
means of meeting a requirement to prevent services drawing more current
than the wiring can support. I assume the electronic circuit breakers in
a VP-X are really current monitors - so I guess what is really happening
is the box monitors the expected current draw, compares the actual draw
and disconnects the circuit if the current draw is greater. Its rather
condescending to call these 'electronic circuit breakers', implying that
they are an automatic disconnection function, why not call them what
they are , something like an active current monitor. The box must be
fully up and running for the current monitoring functions to work. So if
the box really is smart can't it do something else than just switch off
the circuit? Circuit protection is important, but breakers are
yesterday's way of achieving the aim.
Do we really need to know the status of the electrical system? In a
conventional system we will know if a fuse blows as the service will not
work. Current monitoring is straight forward, and voltage monitoring is
something that just about every box does now. What additional benefit
does the VP-X offer?
It does offer other facilities, such as wig-wags, trim protection and
flap protection. But I don't really want to hand over control of flight
controls (ie the trim) to an unknown box of software. It also claims to
disable the flaps above a certain airspeed - but how is that airspeed
sensed and communicated? Unless that function is implemented in some
fairly high integrity way I would not be too happy to rely on it - would
failure at high airspeed mean that the flaps would deploy at way over
the limit speed with potentially serious results?
I think that using a system such as this would demand a completely
separate endurance bus, probably supported by its own alternator - I see
no merit in hooking 2 alternators into one VP-X box.
For me its too many eggs in one box of unknown fragility.
Apologies for the rather negative post.
Peter
On 04/10/2013 22:50, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
At 11:21 AM 10/4/2013, you wrote:
Here
You can find the VP-X Pro installation and operation manual here
http://verticalpower.com/docs/Install_Ops_Manual_VP-X_P_S.pdf
Information about the Dual Buss feature, but only with one energy
source, is on pages 9 and 10 =93 paragraph 4.4
Information about using a 2nd alternator is on page 28 =93
paragraphs 5.9c and 5.9d
Information about wiring back-up circuits is on pages 43 to 46 =93
paragraph 5.24 and 5.24a through 5.24e
Information about using a 2nd battery is on pages 47 to 49 =93
paragraphs 5.26 and 5.27
Hope this helps
I'll need to sit down with a brew and pray over
this for a bit . . .
Bob . . .
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
http://forums.matronics.com
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D
lectric-List"">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D
//forums.matronics.com
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D
ot;">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D
Other Matronics Email List Services
These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.
-- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --
|