AeroElectric-List Digest Archive

Fri 03/25/16


Total Messages Posted: 10



Today's Message Index:
----------------------
 
     1. 12:25 AM - Re: Re: Vertical Power X-VP Pro or Sport (Peter Pengilly)
     2. 05:46 AM - Re: Fast-on tabs or screw terminals for ground? (donjohnston)
     3. 11:42 AM - Re: Re: Vertical Power X-VP Pro or Sport (jan)
     4. 01:38 PM - Re: Re: Vertical Power X-VP Pro or Sport (Kelly McMullen)
     5. 03:29 PM - Charging circuit: Sanity check (Charlie England)
     6. 05:09 PM - Re: Re: Vertical Power X-VP Pro or Sport (Peter Pengilly)
     7. 06:18 PM - Re: Charging circuit: Sanity check (user9253)
     8. 06:26 PM - Brass Strap alternative in Z-19RB (Hariharan Gopalan)
     9. 08:02 PM - Re: Re: Vertical Power X-VP Pro or Sport (Kelly McMullen)
    10. 09:25 PM - Re: Re: Charging circuit: Sanity check (Charlie England)
 
 
 


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
    Time: 12:25:10 AM PST US
    Subject: Re: Vertical Power X-VP Pro or Sport
    From: Peter Pengilly <peter@sportingaero.com>
    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@aviating.com> wrote: > kellym@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? > >


    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
    Time: 05:46:46 AM PST US
    Subject: Re: Fast-on tabs or screw terminals for ground?
    From: "donjohnston" <don@velocity-xl.com>
    Well, to be fair, your 2 cents are worth about $2 compared to others. ;-) And I will continue providing you funds so you can offer your 2 cents here. Thanks for all that you do! stein(at)steinair.com wrote: > 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 > > -- Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=454116#454116


    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
    Time: 11:42:06 AM PST US
    From: jan <jan@CLAVER.DEMON.CO.UK>
    Subject: Re: Vertical Power X-VP Pro or Sport
    :-) .. someone once told me that ignorance is bliss ... Jan _____ From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Peter Pengilly Sent: 25 March 2016 07:23 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@aviating.com <mailto:kellym@aviating.com> > wrote: <mailto:kellym@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 ========== <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="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]--> <style> <!-- /* Font Definitions */ @font-face {font-family:Wingdings; panose-1:5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;} @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";} 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";} span.EmailStyle18 {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> </head> <body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=blue> <div class=Section1> <p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Wingdings><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Wingdings;color:navy'>J</span></fo nt><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial; color:navy'> .. someone once told me that ignorance is bliss &#8230;<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>&nbsp;</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>&nbsp;</o:p></span></font></p> <div> <div class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'> <hr size=2 width="100%" align=center tabindex=-1> </span></font></div> <p class=MsoNormal><b><font size=2 face=Tahoma><span style='font-size:10.0pt; font-family:Tahoma;font-weight:bold'>From:</span></font></b><font size=2 face=Tahoma><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Tahoma'> 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> 25 March 2016 07:23<br> <b><span style='font-weight:bold'>To:</span></b> Aeroelectric List (aeroelectric-list@matronics.com)<br> <b><span style='font-weight:bold'>Subject:</span></b> Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Vertical Power X-VP Pro or Sport</span></font><o:p></o:p></p> </div> <p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size: 12.0pt'><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></font></p> <p><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>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. <o:p></o:p></span></font></p> <p><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>I have had 25 years experience working with airborne software writers, I don't trust them as much as some here seem to! <o:p></o:p></span></font></p> <p><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>Peter<o:p></o:p></span></font></p> <div> <p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size: 12.0pt'>On 25 Mar 2016 02:52, &quot;Kelly McMullen&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:kellym@aviating.com">kellym@aviating.com</a>&gt; wrote:<o:p></o:p></span></font></p> <p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size: 12.0pt'>--&gt; AeroElectric-List message posted by: Kelly McMullen &lt;<a href="mailto:kellym@aviating.com" target="_blank">kellym@aviating.com</a>&gt;<br> <br> Misconceptions from lack of familiarity.<br> <br> On 3/24/2016 4:15 PM, Peter Pengilly wrote:<o:p></o:p></span></font></p> <p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size: 12.0pt'>- The sales pitch is that designing electrical systems and wiring up is<br> difficult and this box makes it easy. I don't agree with these statements!<o:p></o:p></span></font></p> <p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size: 12.0pt'>Never perceived it that way. It does simplify the wiring.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p> <p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size: 12.0pt'>- It provides limited opportunities for expansion. There are a limited<br> number of circuits available, once these are used up any additional<br> services will have to be protected by conventional fuses or circuit<br> breakers - seems to make the box a little pointless.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p> <p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size: 12.0pt'>The Pro version is not that limited, is intended for full IFR panel, which is what I have, with several pins available for expansion.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p> <p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size: 12.0pt'>- The box is expensive compared to fuses.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p> <p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size: 12.0pt'>Not when you have to physically install each, do the labor to replace any that blow, etc. I had full hardware priced for CB &amp; 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.<br> Advanced Flight Systems thought enough of the concept that they designed their own box.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p> <p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size: 12.0pt'>- Combining many functions in one box means that any failure becomes a<br> significant event rather than just an annoyance.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p> <p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size: 12.0pt'>AFAIK, unknown event so far.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p> <p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size: 12.0pt'>- The software is designed and coded to an unknown standard and tested<br> in an unknown way, neither of which engenders confidence.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p> <p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size: 12.0pt'>Have had no issues, have been operating the system for about 3 yrs.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p> <p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size: 12.0pt'>- The standAFAIKards used to design, build and test the hardware are not easy<br> to discern, leading to questions on the long term reliability.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p> <p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>Theoretical, where is data of unreliability?<o:p></o:p></span></font></p> <p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size: 12.0pt'>- Using the box to control trim and flaps using an input from an EFIS<br> places a huge amount of trust in the software writers where a fault<br> risks potentially very serious consequences.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p> <p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size: 12.0pt'>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.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p> <p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size: 12.0pt'>- Those an have chosen to use this box can be very firm in their<br> support, and intolerant of those who present an alternative view, flame<br> suit on!!<o:p></o:p></span></font></p> <p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>Only intolerant of criticism generated by lack of knowledge, not facts.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p> <p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size: 12.0pt'>On the supportive side, the designer (Marc Ausman) is a huge supporter<br> of homebuilt aviation, and is a director of EAA. The real world<br> reliability seems to be reasonable.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p> <p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size: 12.0pt'><br> Data behind that assertion???<o:p></o:p></span></font></p> <p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size: 12.0pt'><br> My advice would be to start by listing all the electrical functions you<br> want in your aircraft, then which are key to the safe completion of a<br> flight. If you have (m)any of these are you content to entrust the<br> operation of these functions to the VPX? If you are list the cost of<br> using fuses against other means. Install equipment for as reason!<br> <br> Peter<o:p></o:p></span></font></p> <p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>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?<br> 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?<br> 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> <br> ===========<br> br&gt; fts!)<br> r&gt; &gt; href=&quot;http://www.buildersbooks.com&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;www.buildersbooks.com<br> rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;http://www.matronics.com/contribution<br> &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; -Matt Dralle, List Admin.<br> ===========<br> -<br> Electric-List&quot; rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroEl ectric-List<br> ===========<br> FORUMS -<br> eferrer&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;http://forums.matronics.com<br> ===========<br> b Site -<br> &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; -Matt Dralle, List Admin.<br> rel=&quot;noreferrer&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;http://www.matronics.com/contribution<br> ===========<br> <br> <br> <o:p></o:p></span></font></p> </div> </div>


    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
    Time: 01:38:38 PM PST US
    Subject: Re: Vertical Power X-VP Pro or Sport
    From: Kelly McMullen <kellym@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@aviating.com > <mailto:kellym@aviating.com>> wrote: > > <kellym@aviating.com <mailto:kellym@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 > ========== > >


    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
    Time: 03:29:28 PM PST US
    Subject: Charging circuit: Sanity check
    From: Charlie England <ceengland7@gmail.com>
    Greetings, I need a sanity check on my current thoughts for the charging circuit in my RV-7. Please note that this is *not* a typical Lyc installation, so many of the assumed requirements/limits do not apply. Engine: Mazda Renesis automotive conversion with total electrical dependency. Alternator(s): 2 ea identical ND internally regulated alternators, each rated at 60 amps. (This choice was driven by both budget constraints and simplicity of installation) My goals/choices are: 1. 'Unlimited' availability of electrical power, to avoid in-route diversion in the case of alternator failure. I accept a single battery,due to the very small likelihood of battery failure. Fuel will easily outlast any but very big/heavy batteries. A PC680 is good for only ~45 minutes with only the engine consuming electrons; much less time with avionics on line. 2.Redundant paths of power to the buss, due to the engine's total dependence on electricity. 3. Ability to check both alternators for proper operation before flight. 4. Optional 'auto-start' for 2nd alt, if alt1 goes offline for any reason. 5.Since the auto engine accessory end allows the 'backup' alternator to be the same size as the primary, I'm willing to use one buss and shed individual loads manually, if multiple failures require it. 6.Continuous electrical load for the engine/fuel pump/instrumentation is ~15 amps at full engine output (yes, it varies). This may seem high, but with high pressure injection pumps and injectors, plus high energy automotive coils, this is pretty 'normal', and has been verified by others running similar systems. 7.Balance of additional avionics & other loads, assuming night flight with heated pitot on, would be an additional 27 amps, worse case. There's minimal likelihood of flying this plane in those conditions, but it could happen, so... 8. Intermittent loads of significance would be: fuel transfer pump (8A), flaps (10A), and landing light (5A). The attached rough sketch shows the IR alternators controlled by regular continuous duty solenoids incorporating Bob's OV modules for OV protection. The two switches supplying (redundant) power to the buss are 50A DC rated toggles (not a hard requirement, but simpler than additional contactor/switch pairs). The diode (high current Schottky's are cheap these days) is to prevent powering alt2's contactor control circuit unless alt2's switch was closed, but provide a redundant path from battery to buss. I desired 'autostart' for alt2, so I added the contactor circuit drawn below the buss. It's intended to be a normally closed relay, held open by the same circuit that supplies power to alt1's contactor. As I type this, I realize that the NC relay needs a diode between its output terminal and the 5A CB, so that it can't be required to carry buss loads when alt2's switch is closed. Any issues with performing a 'mag check' (output check) of the two 50A switches and their alt's, with the engine near idle power & minimal loads? (I'm aware of 'load dump' issues when cycling IR alts at high power.) A related question I'd like an answer to is this: If using internally regulated alternators, is there any issue with leaving both on line at the same time, if they are diode-isolated? Sorry for the long post, but I thought a detailed narrative was required. Remember, auto engine, identical dual internally regulated alternators. Thanks, Charlie


    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
    Time: 05:09:56 PM PST US
    Subject: Re: Vertical Power X-VP Pro or Sport
    From: Peter Pengilly <peter@sportingaero.com>
    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: > <kellym@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@aviating.com >> <mailto:kellym@aviating.com>> wrote: >> >> <kellym@aviating.com <mailto:kellym@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 >> ========== >> >> >> > >


    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
    Time: 06:18:11 PM PST US
    Subject: Re: Charging circuit: Sanity check
    From: "user9253" <fransew@gmail.com>
    The relay under the bus will always be energized whenever the main bus is on, unless the 5 amp breaker is tripped or pulled off. I do not understand its function. It is my understanding that two alternators on line at the same time will fight each other and cause the system voltage to oscillate unless the voltage set-point of one of them is set a few tenths of a volt below the other one. Consider using contactors or heavy duty relays instead of 50 amp switches. Relays allow remote control so that power can be shut off near the battery. That feature is important in the event of a forced landing or crash to prevent sparks from igniting leaking fuel. Consider supplying power to the man bus at both ends. -------- Joe Gores Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=454159#454159


    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
    Time: 06:26:58 PM PST US
    Subject: Brass Strap alternative in Z-19RB
    From: Hariharan Gopalan <rdu.hari@gmail.com>
    I have the batteries under the pilot and co-pilot seats. Z-19RB is designed with both the batteries together and hence the connections between the main battery contactor and the engine battery contactor is shown as a brass strap. Can I replace this with a cable instead? The length would be approximately 24". If yes, what guage of cable should I be using? Thanks Hari


    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
    Time: 08:02:26 PM PST US
    Subject: Re: Vertical Power X-VP Pro or Sport
    From: Kelly McMullen <kellym@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.


    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
    Time: 09:25:24 PM PST US
    Subject: Re: Charging circuit: Sanity check
    From: Charlie England <ceengland7@gmail.com>
    On 3/25/2016 8:16 PM, user9253 wrote: > > The relay under the bus will always be energized whenever the main bus is on, unless the 5 amp breaker is tripped or pulled off. I do not understand its function. > It is my understanding that two alternators on line at the same time will fight each other and cause the system voltage to oscillate unless the voltage set-point of one of them is set a few tenths of a volt below the other one. > Consider using contactors or heavy duty relays instead of 50 amp switches. Relays allow remote control so that power can be shut off near the battery. That feature is important in the event of a forced landing or crash to prevent sparks from igniting leaking fuel. > Consider supplying power to the man bus at both ends. > > -------- > Joe Gores > Joe, Thanks for the reply. Just took another look at my rough sketch; I drew the switch arm incorrectly for the way it is intended to operate. The relay in question is SPDT; the 'on' state drives the switch element away from the load. Opening alt1's CB removes power, passing power through the other CB to alt2's contactor. I haven't ruled out using contactors, but prefer the switch option. Not included in the rough drawing are planned fusible links on the lines feeding the 50A switches. I agree with the concern, but after a post mentioning similar setups in certified a/c (likely without fusible link protection), I decided to explore the option. The 'upside', at least in my head, would be removing all the extra failure points that show up with the extra components. (The two alt contactors & starter contactor are all within a few inches of the battery and each other, so should need no extra protection.) I've heard the same thing about regulator 'hunting' if there are two alts feeding the same buss, but the examples given seem to be of externally regulated alts. I do know there are twins with I am curious about whether this will happen with internally regulated alts. Even if I must forgo simultaneous operation, I hope I can still do a pre-takeoff check by pulling alt1's CB & opening the switch (or contactor..) on that side. Not crazy about pulling the CB before each flight, but it *is* a pull-able breaker. And I'd probably only do it on cross countries, where I'd really need alt2 for endurance. Charlie




    Other Matronics Email List Services

  • Post A New Message
  •   aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
  • UN/SUBSCRIBE
  •   http://www.matronics.com/subscription
  • List FAQ
  •   http://www.matronics.com/FAQ/AeroElectric-List.htm
  • Web Forum Interface To Lists
  •   http://forums.matronics.com
  • Matronics List Wiki
  •   http://wiki.matronics.com
  • 7-Day List Browse
  •   http://www.matronics.com/browse/aeroelectric-list
  • Browse AeroElectric-List Digests
  •   http://www.matronics.com/digest/aeroelectric-list
  • Browse Other Lists
  •   http://www.matronics.com/browse
  • Live Online Chat!
  •   http://www.matronics.com/chat
  • Archive Downloading
  •   http://www.matronics.com/archives
  • Photo Share
  •   http://www.matronics.com/photoshare
  • Other Email Lists
  •   http://www.matronics.com/emaillists
  • Contributions
  •   http://www.matronics.com/contribution

    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! --