 |
Matronics Email Lists
Web Forum Interface to the Matronics Email Lists
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
trigo(at)mail.telepac.pt
Guest
|
 Posted: Fri Oct 04, 2013 8:18 am Post subject: VP-X Pro manual |
 |
|
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 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
Carlos
De: Carlos Trigo [mailto:trigo(at)mail.telepac.pt]
Enviada: 4 de outubro de 2013 17:03
Para: 'aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com'
Assunto: RE: Charging the Aux Battery
Please see answers below
-----Mensagem original-----
De: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com (owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com) [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com (owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com)] Em nome de Robert L. Nuckolls, III
Enviada: 4 de outubro de 2013 16:11
Para: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com (aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com)
Assunto: Re: Charging the Aux Battery
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
--> <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com (nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com)>
At 01:46 PM 9/29/2013, you wrote:
| Quote: | --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Carlos Trigo
--> <trigo(at)mail.telepac.pt (trigo(at)mail.telepac.pt)>
Bob and all
This is probably a dumb question but I will make it anyway.
In a Dual battery electric system architecture, like Z-14 for example,
the Aux Battery will not be charging in flight unless the aux batt.
Switch is flipped On (thus closing the Aux Batt contactor), right?
|
Carlos,
Now that the edges of the sandbox have
been discovered, how do you envision that
a second battery would be integrated into
a V-P system and how would it fit into
your plans for dealing with failure?
There are several objectives I am trying to reach with the decision of including a second battery:
(I mean objectives directly related with electric features, because there are the side consequences in weight – bad for the Total weight of the bird, but perhaps good for the W & B calculations when travelling alone…)
<![if !supportLists]>- <![endif]>Spare juice for the starter cranking power
<![if !supportLists]>- <![endif]>Back-up power for the VP-X box and features
<![if !supportLists]>- <![endif]>Back-up power for the EFIS and radio
<![if !supportLists]>- <![endif]>Back-up power for the fuel pump
<![if !supportLists]>- <![endif]>
Are you considering a second alternator
of ANY size on the vacuum pump pad?
I am considering an SD-8 or an SD-20, but I am not sure it will be overkill to have 2 batteries and 2 alternators (even considering the big bunch of electron consumers aboard the modern OBAM aircraft…)
As I recall, V-P attends to second alternator
and/or battery . . . does their installation
literature speak to these options?
Yes it does. I am at my job place right now, and the manual is at home, but I will try to find it online and copy paste the competent pages
Regards
Carlos
[quote][b]
| | - The Matronics AeroElectric-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelect
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 04, 2013 1:51 pm Post subject: VP-X Pro manual |
|
|
At 11:21 AM 10/4/2013, you wrote:
| Quote: | 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 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 . . . [quote][b]
| | - The Matronics AeroElectric-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
peter(at)sportingaero.com
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 04, 2013 3:01 pm Post subject: 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:
[quote] At 11:21 AM 10/4/2013, you wrote:
| Quote: | 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 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 . . . [b]
| | - The Matronics AeroElectric-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jan(at)CLAVER.DEMON.CO.UK
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 05, 2013 1:05 am Post subject: VP-X Pro manual |
|
|
Very well said …
Jan
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Peter Pengilly
Sent: 05 October 2013 00:01
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: Re: FW: 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:
| Quote: |
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 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 . . . |
0123456789012
[quote][b]
| | - The Matronics AeroElectric-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
trigo(at)mail.telepac.pt
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 05, 2013 2:47 am Post subject: 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 your 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, Ă s 00:01, Peter Pengilly <peter(at)sportingaero.com (peter(at)sportingaero.com)> escreveu:
[quote] 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:
| Quote: | At 11:21 AM 10/4/2013, you wrote:
| Quote: | 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 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 . . .
===================================
st">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
===================================
cs.com
===================================
matronics.com/contribution
===================================
|
[b]
| | - The Matronics AeroElectric-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rleffler
Joined: 05 Nov 2006
Posts: 680
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:39 am Post subject: 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 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(at)claver.demon.co.uk (jan(at)claver.demon.co.uk)> wrote:
[quote] v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} .shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);} <![endif]--> st1\:*{behavior:url(#default#ieooui) } <![endif]--> <![endif]--> <![endif]-->
Very well said …
Jan
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com (owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com) [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com (owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com)] On Behalf Of Peter Pengilly
Sent: 05 October 2013 00:01
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com (aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com)
Subject: Re: FW: 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:
| Quote: |
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 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 . . . |
01234
5
[b]
| | - The Matronics AeroElectric-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List |
|
_________________
Bob Leffler
N410BL - Phase I
http://mykitlog.com/rleffler |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
peter(at)sportingaero.com
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:34 am Post subject: 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:
[quote] I disagree, it's just an example of fear mongering from somebody that hasn't taken the time to understand how the unit works. Â Everyone is entitled to their opinions. Â I happen to disagree with both Jan and Penguilly. Â And yes, I do have one of these installed in my RV-10.
Value delivered is a personal opinion. Â Clearly you don't understand the value. Â So don't put one in your aircraft. Â You don't need to publicly bash the product.
So it sounds like you aren't installing an EFIS or an autopilot either. Â They have software that control critical systems without letting you know what standards they meet, unless you are installing TSO'd units. Â What about electronic ignition? Â Do you trust their firmware? Â 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? Â 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.Â
But I will highlight a couple. Â The unit is integrated into your EFIS. Â Data is bidirectionally passed. Â 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. Â 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. Â These products control the movement, speed, and duration the servos can operate. Â Your argument implies you don't trust these products either. Â 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. Â I won't engage any additional responses. Like I mentioned previously, we can all form our opinions and make personal decisions based on them. Â 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. Â He or one of his staff have always been more than happy to explain their products. Â I too had some perceptions that weren't true. Â 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. Â 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(at)claver.demon.co.uk (jan(at)claver.demon.co.uk)> wrote:
| Quote: | v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} .shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);} <![endif]--> st1\:*{behavior:url(#default#ieooui) } <![endif]--> <![endif]--> <![endif]-->
Very well said …
Â
Jan
Â
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com (owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com) [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com (owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com)] On Behalf Of Peter Pengilly
Sent: 05 October 2013 00:01
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com (aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com)
Subject: Re: FW: VP-X Pro manual
Â
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:
| Quote: |
At 11:21 AM 10/4/2013, you wrote:
Here
Â
You can find the VP-X Pro installation and operation manual here
Â
http://verticalpower.com/docs/Install_Ops_Manual_VP-X_P_S.pdf
Â
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
Â
Hope this helps
 I'll need to sit down with a brew and pray over
 this for a bit . . .
 Bob . . . |
 0 1 2 3 4
5
 |
6 [b]
| | - The Matronics AeroElectric-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelect
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 05, 2013 5:48 am Post subject: 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 . . .
| | - The Matronics AeroElectric-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mike(at)aeromotogroup.com
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 05, 2013 10:42 am Post subject: VP-X Pro manual |
|
|
I found Mr. Leffler’s post to be one man’s thought-provoking opinion, I didn’t read it as bashing. I appreciate it when someone makes me think of things I haven’t considered, ESPECIALLY when it’s related to potential risks in aviation.  I’m not looking to get into a tit-for-tat, but I for one appreciated posts like Mr. Leffler’s when they’re rational and well-explained, as I thought his was. I hope to continue to see such posts here.
Michael
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Peter Pengilly
Sent: Saturday, October 5, 2013 5:34 AM
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
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:
| Quote: |
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(at)claver.demon.co.uk (jan(at)claver.demon.co.uk)> wrote:
| Quote: |
Very well said …
Jan
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com (owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com) [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com (owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com)] On Behalf Of Peter Pengilly
Sent: 05 October 2013 00:01
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com (aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com)
Subject: Re: FW: 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:
| Quote: |
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 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 . . . |
01234567
|
890 |
12345678901234567
[quote][b]
| | - The Matronics AeroElectric-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mike(at)aeromotogroup.com
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 05, 2013 12:29 pm Post subject: VP-X Pro manual |
|
|
Oops! I meant Mr. Pengilly’s original post, not Mr. Leffler’s response. Sorry for the confusion.
From: Michael McMahon [mailto:mike(at)aeromotogroup.com]
Sent: Saturday, October 5, 2013 11:41 AM
To: 'aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com'
Subject: RE: VP-X Pro manual
I found Mr. Leffler’s post to be one man’s thought-provoking opinion, I didn’t read it as bashing. I appreciate it when someone makes me think of things I haven’t considered, ESPECIALLY when it’s related to potential risks in aviation. I’m not looking to get into a tit-for-tat, but I for one appreciated posts like Mr. Leffler’s when they’re rational and well-explained, as I thought his was. I hope to continue to see such posts here.
Michael
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com (owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com) [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com (owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com)] On Behalf Of Peter Pengilly
Sent: Saturday, October 5, 2013 5:34 AM
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com (aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com)
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:
| Quote: |
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(at)claver.demon.co.uk (jan(at)claver.demon.co.uk)> wrote:
| Quote: |
Very well said …
Jan
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com (owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com) [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com (owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com)] On Behalf Of Peter Pengilly
Sent: 05 October 2013 00:01
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com (aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com)
Subject: Re: FW: 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:
| Quote: |
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 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 . . . |
01234567
|
890 |
12345678901234567
[quote][b]
| | - The Matronics AeroElectric-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
Get Email Distribution Too!
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
