Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 03:45 AM - Re: Fast-on tabs or screw terminals for ground? (bob noffs)
2. 06:57 AM - Re: Vertical Power X-VP Pro or Sport (Greenbacks, UnLtd.)
3. 07:22 AM - Re: Re: Vertical Power X-VP Pro or Sport (Kelly McMullen)
4. 08:13 AM - Re: Re: Vertical Power X-VP Pro or Sport (Jeff Luckey)
5. 08:29 AM - Re: Re: Vertical Power X-VP Pro or Sport (DeWitt Whittington)
6. 01:13 PM - Re: Re: Vertical Power X-VP Pro or Sport (Kelly McMullen)
7. 02:41 PM - Re: Re: Vertical Power X-VP Pro or Sport (MLWynn@aol.com)
8. 04:17 PM - Re: Re: Vertical Power X-VP Pro or Sport (Peter Pengilly)
9. 04:19 PM - Re: Vertical Power X-VP Pro or Sport (donjohnston)
10. 04:33 PM - Re: Re: Vertical Power X-VP Pro or Sport (Jeff Luckey)
11. 05:02 PM - Re: Fast-on tabs or screw terminals for ground? (donjohnston)
12. 05:25 PM - Re: Re: Fast-on tabs or screw terminals for ground? (ashleysc@broadstripe.net)
13. 05:43 PM - Re: Re: Fast-on tabs or screw terminals for ground? (Stein Bruch)
14. 07:32 PM - Re: Re: Vertical Power X-VP Pro or Sport (Kelly McMullen)
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 |
|
Subject: | Re: Fast-on tabs or screw terminals for ground? |
downside to fat ons is you really do need needle nose to remove them and it
gets to the point you wonder if you are damaging the tab or its attachment
so much force is needed
bob noffs
On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 12:59 PM, Hariharan Gopalan <rdu.hari@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Seems like intuition can be wrong, like in flying.
>
> Thanks everyone.
>
> On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 12:14 PM, Robert Reed <robertr237@att.net> wrote:
>
>> Considering the fact that reliability of the Fast-on Tabs seems to be
>> equal to the screw on terminals it comes down to accessibility. It seems
>> that most of the electrical connections are always in a hard to access
>> location and getting a screwdriver into those locations is always a chore
>> that gets considerably worse with age, I will go with the fast-on tabs
>> every time.
>>
>> Bob
>>
>> ------------------------------
>> *From:* Hariharan Gopalan <rdu.hari@gmail.com>
>> *To:* aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, March 23, 2016 9:44 AM
>> *Subject:* AeroElectric-List: Fast-on tabs or screw terminals for ground?
>>
>> Hello Group
>>
>> Intuitively screwed down ground terminals seem so much more reliable is
>> there a reason the fast-on tabs are more popular?
>>
>> Thanks
>> Hari
>>
>>
>>
>
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: Vertical Power X-VP Pro or Sport |
Have any of you incorporated this box into your panel build?
Any feedback would be appreciated.
Thanks
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: 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:
>
> Have any of you incorporated this box into your panel build?
> Any feedback would be appreciated.
>
> Thanks
>
>
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: 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.=C2- If the unit fails the aircr
aft is down and you, the owner, cannot fix it.
2. The system adds several layers of complexity & cost to the relatively si
mple task of power distribution.
I'm curious if owners of the system share those concerns and how they addre
ss them.
-Jeff
On Thursday, March 24, 2016 7:52 AM, Kelly McMullen <kellym@aviating.co
m> wrote:
om>
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:
on.net>
>
> Have any of you incorporated this box into your panel build?
> Any feedback would be appreciated.
>
> Thanks
>
>
=C2- =C2- =C2- =C2- =C2- -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
-
S -
-
=C2- =C2- =C2- =C2- =C2- -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
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: 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? 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.
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) Whittington
Richmond, VA
804-677-4849 iPhone
804-358-4333 Home
On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 10:20 AM, Kelly McMullen <kellym@aviating.com>
wrote:
> kellym@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@verizon.net>
>>
>> Have any of you incorporated this box into your panel build?
>> Any feedback would be appreciated.
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
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 |
|
Subject: | Re: 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:
> 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@aviating.com> wrote:
>
>
> <kellym@aviating.com <mailto:kellym@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@verizon.net <mailto:N4ZQ@verizon.net>>
> >
> > Have any of you incorporated this box into your panel build?
> > Any feedback would be appreciated.
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> >http://w -Matt Dralle, List ========
>
>
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 |
|
Subject: | Re: 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@aviating.com writes:
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Kelly McMullen
<kellym@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:
> 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@aviating.com> wrote:
>
>
> <kellym@aviating.com <mailto:kellym@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@verizon.net <mailto:N4ZQ@verizon.net>>
> >
> > Have any of you incorporated this box into your panel build?
> > Any feedback would be appreciated.
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> >http://w -Matt Dralle, List ========
>
>
Message 8
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: 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@verizon.net> wrote:
> N4ZQ@verizon.net>
>
> Have any of you incorporated this box into your panel build?
> Any feedback would be appreciated.
>
> Thanks
>
>
Message 9
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: 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).
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=454094#454094
Message 10
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: Vertical Power X-VP Pro or Sport |
Kelly,
While I may not agree w/ some of you assumptions, I have a better understan
ding of how you reached your conclusions.=C2- Thanks for sharing that.
-Jeff
On Thursday, March 24, 2016 1:11 PM, Kelly McMullen <kellym@aviating.co
m> wrote:
om>
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:
> I have wondered about 2 issues w/ VP systems:
>
> 1. The all-your-eggs-in-one-basket issue.=C2- 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@aviating.com> wrote:
>
>
> <kellym@aviating.com <mailto:kellym@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@verizon.net <mailto:N4ZQ@verizon.net>>
>=C2- >
>=C2- > Have any of you incorporated this box into your panel build?
>=C2- > Any feedback would be appreciated.
>=C2- >
>=C2- > Thanks
>=C2- >
>=C2- >http://w =C2- =C2- =C2- =C2- =C2- =C2- =C2- -Matt Dr
alle, List ========
>
>
=C2- =C2- =C2- =C2- =C2- -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
-
S -
-
=C2- =C2- =C2- =C2- =C2- -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
Message 11
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: Fast-on tabs or screw terminals for ground? |
jbsoar(at)gmail.com wrote:
> Fast-on Tabs are more reliable, and probably lighter.
How can Fast-on Tabs be more reliable? They are held on with just friction. A
ring terminal with a locknut would seem to be more secure.
I am NOT saying Fast-on's are unreliable. Just trying to understand the statement.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=454097#454097
Message 12
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: Fast-on tabs or screw terminals for ground? |
Hi All;
The friction of fast tabs is mighty. They're hard to pull off.
The friction of a screw and tapped hole or nut may actually be less.
Cheers! Stu.
----- Original Message -----
From: "donjohnston" <don@velocity-xl.com>
Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2016 5:01:22 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Fast-on tabs or screw terminals for ground?
jbsoar(at)gmail.com wrote:
> Fast-on Tabs are more reliable, and probably lighter.
How can Fast-on Tabs be more reliable? They are held on with just friction. A
ring terminal with a locknut would seem to be more secure.
I am NOT saying Fast-on's are unreliable. Just trying to understand the statement.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=454097#454097
Message 13
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: Fast-on tabs or screw terminals for ground? |
Ever tried to get a "fast on" terminal (PIDG type) off of a good spade with
your bare fingers? Almost impossible....yet screws and locknuts (without
locktite that is) can and do often work themselves loose, especially during
the first 40 hrs of flight as things "settle in".
We many thousands upon thousands of both per year, and I'm a bit ambivalent
to either being superior, but I do know that if you use high quality
terminals those things are VERY good.
Just my 2 cents as usual.
Cheers,
Stein
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
donjohnston
Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2016 7:01 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Fast-on tabs or screw terminals for ground?
--> <don@velocity-xl.com>
jbsoar(at)gmail.com wrote:
> Fast-on Tabs are more reliable, and probably lighter.
How can Fast-on Tabs be more reliable? They are held on with just friction.
A ring terminal with a locknut would seem to be more secure.
I am NOT saying Fast-on's are unreliable. Just trying to understand the
statement.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=454097#454097
Message 14
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: Vertical Power X-VP Pro or Sport |
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?
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! --
|