What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

To VP-X or Not to VP-X?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Hartstoc

Well Known Member
One of the hats I wear is that of a home automation specialist. In home automation we still use individual resettable breakers, but in many respects the Vertical Power VP-X resembles a home automation controller. ?Switches? installed do not actually switch anything at all, they simple change the state of a yes/no function withing the VP-X, and it exececutes whatever switching tasks it has been programmed to perform in response. This can be very powerful. (In my home a keypad button by my bedside has programmed as a ?good night? button, which dutifully turns off any lights left on on all five buildings on my property, brings up a seasonally appropriate set of outdoor lighting, arms the security system, and closes all blinds. Doing all that with conventional switches would be impossible.)

The VP-X also provides a good deal of information about the health of the electrical system, and it eliminates a plethora of potential failure points associated with all the crimp connectors and load-carrying switches it eliminates, so the thought of installing one with my upcoming all-Garmin panel upgrade is pretty suductive.

Yet somehow, I?m having trouble pulling the trigger. My panel is being designed with redundancy and failure tolerance in IFR scenarios as a high priority, and there are aspects of the VP-X that may be contrary to this goal. First, access to and control of the VP-X requires a functioning EFIS, a G3X Touch in my case. While it is true that even with an EFIS failure, the Vp-X should continue doing its job after an EFIS failure, the thought of this is a bit unsettling. If the failure involves other components, how can you investigate? Another concern is that the VP-X is software/firmware dependent, and a problem there could bring down the whole shooting match without recourse. That is why I use software-free lightspeed ignitions instead ofthe other choices. Although the VP-X would eliminate a large number of failure points, few if any of those would be very disabling by themselves. These concerns make the already-installed switches and breakers in my panel look a lot more attractive.

So, even though my home-automation experience draws me toward the VP-X, I find myself leaning the other way at the moment. Any insights or opinions out there would be much appreciated, and would surely help with the final decision.- Otis
 
In spite of the advantages claimed by the VP-X system, I rejected its use in my electrical system because there was no other manufacturer making a similar or drop in replacement. So if the company currently manufacturing the VP-X (and the founder of the company that first developed the product is no longer involved) decides to discontinue it or goes bankrupt the builder is left with a difficult problem.
 
...and

Just don?t mention electronic fuel injection or electronic ignition...and heaven help you if you have a VPX, too!
 
Otis,
There is a lot of info that has been written here over the years for and against this type of product in our experimental endeavors. Some folks swear by these devices, some folks are raw about previous experiences. It sounds like you like a lot of automation and this product may just be right up your alley. I am on the side of simplicity and decided not to use the product mentioned. That being said, the experimental world is great in that you have so many options available to you over the certified world.

No matter which path you choose, good luck and enjoy the journey.

cj

One of the hats I wear is that of a home automation specialist. In home automation we still use individual resettable breakers, but in many respects the Vertical Power VP-X resembles a home automation controller. “Switches” installed do not actually switch anything at all, they simple change the state of a yes/no function withing the VP-X, and it exececutes whatever switching tasks it has been programmed to perform in response. This can be very powerful. (In my home a keypad button by my bedside has programmed as a “good night” button, which dutifully turns off any lights left on on all five buildings on my property, brings up a seasonally appropriate set of outdoor lighting, arms the security system, and closes all blinds. Doing all that with conventional switches would be impossible.)

The VP-X also provides a good deal of information about the health of the electrical system, and it eliminates a plethora of potential failure points associated with all the crimp connectors and load-carrying switches it eliminates, so the thought of installing one with my upcoming all-Garmin panel upgrade is pretty suductive.

Yet somehow, I’m having trouble pulling the trigger. My panel is being designed with redundancy and failure tolerance in IFR scenarios as a high priority, and there are aspects of the VP-X that may be contrary to this goal. First, access to and control of the VP-X requires a functioning EFIS, a G3X Touch in my case. While it is true that even with an EFIS failure, the Vp-X should continue doing its job after an EFIS failure, the thought of this is a bit unsettling. If the failure involves other components, how can you investigate? Another concern is that the VP-X is software/firmware dependent, and a problem there could bring down the whole shooting match without recourse. That is why I use software-free lightspeed ignitions instead ofthe other choices. Although the VP-X would eliminate a large number of failure points, few if any of those would be very disabling by themselves. These concerns make the already-installed switches and breakers in my panel look a lot more attractive.

So, even though my home-automation experience draws me toward the VP-X, I find myself leaning the other way at the moment. Any insights or opinions out there would be much appreciated, and would surely help with the final decision.- Otis
 
I run 2 busses, and "engine" and an "everything else" buss.
I use a VPX sport for the "everything else" buss and I like it for its features and interface with the EFIS.
Since my -7 is electrically dependent to keep the engine running, I have a separate engine buss with fuses.

If the VPX (or my EFIS) goes TU, I lose everything (EFIS, radio, transponder, etc...) but the engine. Everything electrical will fail at some point, and I have most of my eggs in the EFIS and VPX basket. My -7 is day/night VFR and I'm ok with the situation now. I would like a non EFIS/VPX dependent backup.

Features of the VPX I like/use:
1. fault detection- the vpx will tell you if its an open or short and will give you an audible and visual alarm when interfaced with an EFIS
2. Flaps- you can set multiple positions with a single click of a button and set speeds that will prevent the flaps from moving (below 85knots, 3 positions for extension, 1 click for full retract)
3. trim- can change the speed the trim moves depending on speed of
aircraft.
4. current draw- I can see the current draw of each individual thing. (wow, landing and strobes use a lot of current... LED upgrade?)

Using fuses can (will) be significantly cheaper than the VPX. #2 can be done with a separate module. #3 may not be used if the trim is connected to the EFIS and autopilot to use autotrim.

If I were planning IFR, I would do some research on MTBF of circuit breakers, vs fuses vs VPX. (I would guess fuses would win, VPX in 2nd and CB's in last place)

Lastly, once whatever system is installed and working... it will be working in the background and any cool factor may just disappear.


my 2cents
 
...

If the VPX (or my EFIS) goes TU, I lose everything (EFIS, radio, transponder, etc...) but the engine. Everything electrical will fail at some point, and I have most of my eggs in the EFIS and VPX basket. My -7 is day/night VFR and I'm ok with the situation now. I would like a non EFIS/VPX dependent backup.

.....

my 2cents

The bit about the loss of an EFIS confuses me...

Almost all EFIS units have the capability of using a dedicated, EFIS only, back-up battery.
If you have two screens an EFIS failure, or a power failure to an EFIS unit(s), should still allow reasonably safe flying to an airport.

For those of us with at least one magneto the bit about two busses shouldn't apply and is a plus in the VPX column.

My though for picking a VPX was that it would save me time on wiring. :)
 
I would recommend you first deciding on the type of avionics you plan to install. For example, Garmin has the GAD 26, which does many items the VP system performs. I installed a full Garmin package, with the GAD26 and a Bussman 28 circuit ATC fuse box for my circuit breakers. I have fuses that will light up if they blow. The Garmin unit drives the flaps, stick controls, lights, etc. I’m happy with this set up.

I’m not sure if the other avionics manufactures have something equal to the GAD26. Having a hub type system (i.e. VP or Garmin) simplifies your system and installation. The negative with any hub system is its a single source failure, but with modern electronics, failures risk is really minimal. Take your time and look at everything thats out there, and what is best for you.
 
Designing a redundant power distribution is worthy of any project. However, if you want redundancy with a VPX, you either add enough breakers and work around switches to achieve that redundancy or you buy two VPX boxes.

Breakers and switches are simple, and if one fails you don?t lose the world and find yourself sitting behind a dark panel (assuming you gave the design some thought). For an IFR airplane I see many disadvantages with the VPX - clearly outweighing the few advantages.

Donning my Nomex suit...
Carl
 
The bit about the loss of an EFIS confuses me...
If you have two screens an EFIS failure, or a power failure to an EFIS unit(s), should still allow reasonably safe flying to an airport.

I only have 1 screen, no backup instruments, and the transponder, vpx, audio panel, radio, and autopilot are controlled from that screen. I do have a remote radio head, so I can still control the radio.
 
Last edited:
I would recommend you first deciding on the type of avionics you plan to install. For example, Garmin has the GAD 26, which does many items the VP system performs. I installed a full Garmin package, with the GAD26 with a Bussman 28 circuit ATC fuse box for my circuit breakers. I have fuses that will light up if they blow. The Garmin unit drives the flaps, stick controls, lights, etc. I’m happy with this set up.

I’m not sure if the other avionics manufactures have something equal to the GAD26. Having a hub type system (i.e. VP or Garmin) simplifies your system and installation. The negative with any hub system is its a single source failure, but with modern electronics, failures risk is really minimal. Take your time and look at everything thats out there, and what is best for you.

Sorry about this duplicate. This was a double tap mistake.
 
Last edited:
The number of risks the VPX manages far exceeds the risks it introduces. If you design your system correctly you can have a whole lot less to manage
 
I like what I have,,,

Not to rehash nay arguments for or against, I used the VPX-pro and detailed the whole electrical system design logic and build in this thread;

http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=152279

For what it's worth, I am still happy with the decision.

As far as failure modes I have a battery direct E buss that I would have put in place anyway to protect against failure of the main power relay.
I also have a separate battery buss (different from the E buss) with direct feed to feed one of the EI boxes that I would have regardless of the VPX to keep the prop spinning.
Add to that a G5 with battery back up to get on the ground if everything goes to ****, and I think I am in good shape.
 
If I were to build 100 more RV?s....the only thing I can say for certain is there would have a VPX is every single one of them. Couldn?t be happier with mine.
 
If I were to build 100 more RV?s....the only thing I can say for certain is there would have a VPX is every single one of them. Couldn?t be happier with mine.

I couldn't agree more! The VP-X greatly simplified my wiring portion of the build. Has to be one of the best investments I made in my project!:)
 
While it is true that even with an EFIS failure, the Vp-X should continue doing its job after an EFIS failure, the thought of this is a bit unsettling. If the failure involves other components, how can you investigate?

A caveat: I am still in the building camp, and about everything involving myself and electrical system design is hypothetical at this point.

To my way of thinking, this isn't a huge issue. "Investigation" is something to be done after I get the aircraft safely on the ground. My current system plans involve the VP-X, but I also intend to design a system that can function minimally with the VP-X out of the picture entirely. That is, even if the EFIS fails, and then the VP-X goes bonkers, I want some sort of E-bus that'll give me enough stuff to land the thing.

Now, I haven't actually done the design of said system, so it remains to be seen just how well this idea will work out. I need to go page through my Nuckolls book again this weekend...
 
Otis ya already got this figured out. "My panel is being designed with redundancy and failure tolerance in IFR scenarios as a high priority, and there are aspects of the VP-X that may be contrary to this goal."

Simple and redundant are keywords here. These are simple airplanes not airliners. The less complex and single point failure you can make them with good redundancy for essential components the better in my opinion.

There is a big difference between flying in the clouds or under the clouds. If you are under the clouds and all the electrics quit it sure would be nice if the motor would still be working and perhaps have some way to navigate and communicate. Not a lot of life threatening problems if you're VFR. Change the scenario to IFR in the clouds and the situation is completely different. Redundancy and single point failure take on a whole new meaning.

While I truly believe that VPX is a great idea and makes an installation simpler, especially in a VFR aircraft. Every wiring diagram that I've seen in these posts that is trying to provide additional redundancy for key components or systems for a VPX based system, in my opinion, just adds complexity in an effort to mitigate the possibility of single point failure.

Everyone has their own level of risk tolerance and their own need for redundancy. For me I didn't see the advantage of a VPX based system and decided to use breakers, fuses, switches and multiple busses.

But hey I'm and old guy and my flip phone still lets me make calls, so what do I know.
 
I would recommend you first deciding on the type of avionics you plan to install. For example, Garmin has the GAD 26, which does many items the VP system performs. I installed a full Garmin package, with the GAD26 and a Bussman 28 circuit ATC fuse box for my circuit breakers. I have fuses that will light up if they blow. The Garmin unit drives the flaps, stick controls, lights, etc. I?m happy with this set up.

I?m not sure if the other avionics manufactures have something equal to the GAD26. Having a hub type system (i.e. VP or Garmin) simplifies your system and installation. The negative with any hub system is its a single source failure, but with modern electronics, failures risk is really minimal. Take your time and look at everything thats out there, and what is best for you.

Good points! And yes, I?ll have the full Garmin package a single 10? G3X touch, a G5, GAD 26, G507 autopilot with G28 servos. You are correct, many of the VP-X capabilities will already be there. - Otis
 
and...

"For me I didn't see the advantage of a VPX based system and decided to use breakers, fuses, switches and multiple busses."

A case can be made for failure of breakers and switches, as well...

NO ONE has designed or built a perfect aircraft...EVER.

So, as it has been posted many times, it is all about each individual's risk assessment and their corresponding level of risk acceptance.

There is no right or wrong answer, though many here would like you to believe their opinion is the the only correct one...

I think the best advice, so far, is design the system to "fail gracefully"...it is not possible to design a system that has no failure modes...
 
In spite of the advantages claimed by the VP-X system, I rejected its use in my electrical system because there was no other manufacturer making a similar or drop in replacement. So if the company currently manufacturing the VP-X (and the founder of the company that first developed the product is no longer involved) decides to discontinue it or goes bankrupt the builder is left with a difficult problem.

I understand your point Terry.

I love my VP100 - yup, no longer made or supported. It was disappointing when Marc sold the company and the new company decided to not offer support to legacy products.

I was fortunate enough to buy a spare VP100 from a fellow VAFer.
 
I'm a Big fan of simple, switches and CB/fuses, doesn't get any simplier than that :D
Just don't see the need for a computer running a simple electrical system.
 
What an interesting variety of comments punctuated by some real bias -
Simple system re circuit breakers - really ? With CB’s there is a lot of work in mounting them & making up bus harnesses etc, then redundant backup circuits etc.
Redundancy for circuits, particularly for IFR - personally I have what I believe is a simple back up system for GPS/Com (DPDT switch), Autopilot (same) & Fuel Pump (SPDT). That arrangement with the switch down ( they have missile covers) the power is via the VPX, when the switches are in the up position power comes direct ( via a fuse block) from the battery - now that’s simple !
No bias here, just another way of doing electrics & redundancy.:)
 
Otis, if this is one of those things that I have to explain to you, you probably would not understand. The VPX is a great addition to any airplane. It does so many great things and has no negative characteristics. The Garmin screens have two inputs. If one does not receive power it still works on the other. The likelihood of the VPX going down is very small but even if it does the second pin will always receive power unless it was a short. Safe to say that you will do what you want to do. That being said I love my VPX and would build my next airplane with one as well.

;) CJ
 
Otis, if this is one of those things that I have to explain to you, you probably would not understand. The VPX is a great addition to any airplane. It does so many great things and has no negative characteristics. The Garmin screens have two inputs. If one does not receive power it still works on the other. The likelihood of the VPX going down is very small but even if it does the second pin will always receive power unless it was a short. Safe to say that you will do what you want to do. That being said I love my VPX and would build my next airplane with one as well.

;) CJ

Actually, I?m still undecided on this but all of the comments pro and con VP-X are really interesting. The argument for it in VFR only aircraft, with even the most basic backup like a G5with aux battery, is an easy ?yes!? For those so inclined.

John?s point above is relevant for my airplane, because it will not just have an aux battery for the dual lightspeeds, it will have twin, mutually isolated 16AH EarthX ETX900-VNT batteries that are fully interchangeable in flight, and a very good essential loads sub-buss that would be all breakers/switches, so I?ll have the option of supplying the second power pin on selected Garmin devices from there. With careful design, it should be possible to acommodate a full meltdown of either the G3X Touch or the GTN 750 in IFR flight.

Still pondering...
 
Actually, I?m still undecided on this but all of the comments pro and con VP-X are really interesting. The argument for it in VFR only aircraft, with even the most basic backup like a G5with aux battery, is an easy ?yes!? For those so inclined.

John?s point above is relevant for my airplane, because it will not just have an aux battery for the dual lightspeeds, it will have twin, mutually isolated 16AH EarthX ETX900-VNT batteries that are fully interchangeable in flight, and a very good essential loads sub-buss that would be all breakers/switches, so I?ll have the option of supplying the second power pin on selected Garmin devices from there. With careful design, it should be possible to acommodate a full meltdown of either the G3X Touch or the GTN 750 in IFR flight.

Still pondering...

Careful - on the GTN-650 and 750 series the power pins (two for nav, three for comm) are not there for alternate power input. All pins must be wired in parallel. This is done to achieve the current needed without going to larger pins.

Note page 5-9 of the install manual.

Carl
 
My decision to use a VP-X Pro was based on the features it provides, and the quality of the planning and other tools and documentation provided on the website. My decision has been reinforced by the prompt and helpful responses I have had from Vertical power in the planning review that it offers and the few other questions I have posed. The wiring kit provided makes the install easy.

Redundancy is an important consideration for flight critical electrical dependant items, whether using separate breakers or a VP-X system. In either architecture, for example, the master relay provides a single point for electrical failure. As mentioned, EFIS systems have provision for independent backup by either internal or external battery, a single magneto or direct battery connection provides back-up for ignition.
 
Careful - on the GTN-650 and 750 series the power pins (two for nav, three for comm) are not there for alternate power input. All pins must be wired in parallel. This is done to achieve the current needed without going to larger pins.

Note page 5-9 of the install manual.

Carl

Carl is correct, but there is an alternative solution.

You can switch the two power inputs via an external switch that connects the GTN power inputs to two different buses.

I can power my gtn650 from either the main bus or the ebus, both of which have dedicated alternators and batteries. The only down side is that if you flip the switch, the gtn650 will reboot.

Btw, I am a fan of devices like the VPX or the new AFS power/data unit. Being able to see real time current draw on a per circuit basis greatly aids troubleshooting.
 
Last edited:
VPX

I enjoy the abundant utility that the VPX offers in my airplane. As for single point of failure or redundancy concerns, I can turn the master OFF in flight (disabling the VPX entirely), and still retain PFD, MFD, GTN650 and autopilot to execute a fully coupled IFR approach if I have to. Just sayin' it's not difficult to apply a little rigor to design a robust system using this excellent piece of kit.
 
I enjoy the abundant utility that the VPX offers in my airplane. As for single point of failure or redundancy concerns, I can turn the master OFF in flight (disabling the VPX entirely), and still retain PFD, MFD, GTN650 and autopilot to execute a fully coupled IFR approach if I have to. Just sayin' it's not difficult to apply a little rigor to design a robust system using this excellent piece of kit.

Excellent point- good design well executed is every bit as important as the componentry used. It is crucial to consider the potential impact of each failure mode that you can imagine, and satisfy yourself that enough of the system remains viable for safe completion of the mission. It also has to be intuitive and user friendly. Going back to the home automation analogy, two designers installing identical componentry can create systems that delight the end user or drives them crazy.

At this point I?m convinced that I could design VP-X into my system safely, but still have a way to go in determining if it really makes sense to include it. My big box of Garmin componentry should arrive in a couple of days- much fun awaits!
 
I enjoy the abundant utility that the VPX offers in my airplane. As for single point of failure or redundancy concerns, I can turn the master OFF in flight (disabling the VPX entirely), and still retain PFD, MFD, GTN650 and autopilot to execute a fully coupled IFR approach if I have to. Just sayin' it's not difficult to apply a little rigor to design a robust system using this excellent piece of kit.

That sounds great. I'm also planning a VPX.

I'm sure others besides myself would like to see your wiring diagram.
 
Many builders are adding so much complexity to their planes that the empty weights are well over 1100 pounds for a 9, 8, 7, and 6.

Modern EFIS's have battery backups so there is little need for Ebusses, and the rest. Lighter and simpler is to install a handheld GPS and Pocket panel, or something similar.

There is no need for flap position indicators, electric trim, etc. Keep your plane simple and light and they will not only fly better but the odds of an issue are greatly reduced.

Unless you install P-mags, then you MUST put an EICommander in your panel! ;)
 
and...

...and that is the way YOU want your plane. That most certainly does not make it the best or right way for someone else.

I find it humorous how easy it is for people to generalize a specific example.

I find it somewhat annoying when folks who WANT to push the envelope on their builds are chastised for it because it doesn't conform.

The ones who LEAD are the ones who promote progress and advance our hobby...the rest are FOLLOWERS who are fine with the CURRENT status quo.

Neither should be castigated for their personal choice as to lead or follow...

Remember, if Van had been a FOLLOWER, none of us would be building these wonderful RVs...
 
That sounds great. I'm also planning a VPX.

I'm sure others besides myself would like to see your wiring diagram.

Here's mine - for discussion/entertainment only, not to be interpreted by anyone, especially lawyers, as instructions on how to build anything...

i-3GV4b8W-XL.jpg
 
Many builders are adding so much complexity to their planes that the empty weights are well over 1100 pounds for a 9, 8, 7, and 6.

Modern EFIS's have battery backups so there is little need for Ebusses, and the rest. Lighter and simpler is to install a handheld GPS and Pocket panel, or something similar.

There is no need for flap position indicators, electric trim, etc. Keep your plane simple and light and they will not only fly better but the odds of an issue are greatly reduced.

Unless you install P-mags, then you MUST put an EICommander in your panel! ;)

I’m actually finding that one of the great benefits of panel componentry and other high-tech options available these days is that overall weight and system complexity can often be neutral or even reduced during upgrades. My upgrade from Dynon D-100/D120, gps496, sl-30, 337xpndr, and a bunch of backup steam guages to G3X10”Touch, GTN750, G5with batt, G507 AP, GTR20 com2on the G3X, GTX345, and GMA245 will be weight-neutral but vastly more capable. This even with the 10# weight of the GTN.

I DO need a good essential loads sub-buss due to dual Plasma III’s and dual electric fuel pumps, but the twin pair of EarthX EXT900-VNT’s and the one added contactor that will be required will have a total weight below the one PC-680 they are replacing, but combined total CCAamps go from 280 to 800! This setup is far more weight-efficient than having individual backup batteries on the various devices, and by design it is impossible to discharge both batteries before discovering an alternator failure.

The composite hartzell constant speed prop installation weighed the same as the fixed pitch sensenich I removed, but it converted my airplane from a pussycat to a tiger! Since the carbon fibre blades themselves are very lightweight, the gryroscopic enertial forces are so much reduced that the aircraft is far more nimble, and I enjoy sustained climbs of 2000+fpm solo with 180HP. All examples of win-win options with technology(to be fair, technology + $$$).

yes, my fully painted 7A will hover around 1120#empty after all mods, but I can(and do) fly with a180# aerobatics instructor, parachutes, and 19 gallons of gas and still be well within the aerobatic envelope, and my airplane will be capable of safe , fully coupled IFR GPS proceedires yet to come. My wife and I can carry full fuel and 100# of luggage well within weight and CG limits. The range of performance I enjoy seems like a miracle to me.- Otis
 
Last edited:
I won't get into a long dissertation but I'd never build another plane without a VPX pro. Lancair with dual ElectroAir's, dual MGL touch screens, Garmin 340-430W-SL30-327, Android, dual Lithium, etc, etc.... Been flawless going on 5 years. Installation and set up were miles ahead of a panel full of breakers, not to mention the room saved. The VPX does far more functions than just C/B's.
 
Last edited:
Cost/complexity/benefit analysis

The decision to VPX or not to VPX is no different from any other choice that you make while building your bird. I think you live and learn and you may make a choice for or against a particular type of equipment on one project and make a completely different choice the next time around. On my first -7 I went with a C/S prop, duel alternators, pilot and passenger breaks,....and a VPX. On my current -7 project I simplified things and went with a F/P prop, single alternator, pilot side only breaks,....and C.B.'s and fuses. Is a C/S prop, two alternators, duel breaks, and a VPX nice items to have?....yes! Do I really need those items?....no. I guess it just boils down to a cost/complexity/benefit analysis. On my current -7 project I decided to go with a few simple C.B.'s to manage my essential bus and simple spade fuses to handle the main bus.

Mark
 
The gadget junkie and the VPX:

(1) Claims you can't know how good it is until you try it.

(2) Choice to use is mostly supported by other users.

(3) Believes it enhances ability to function.

(4) Once installed, can't function without it.

(5) Dealer says everything is fine.

(6) If unavailable, treatment can remove user from circulation for quite some time.
 
The gadget junkie and the VPX:

(1) Claims you can't know how good it is until you try it.

(2) Choice to use is mostly supported by other users.

(3) Believes it enhances ability to function.

(4) Once installed, can't function without it.

(5) Dealer says everything is fine.

(6) If unavailable, treatment can remove user from circulation for quite some time.

Two facts about the VPX are clear: 1. I don't recall seeing anyone complaining they don't like the VPX (newer version) and 2. I don't recall seeing anyone removing their VPX and replacing it with C/B's, servo controllers, over voltage indicator/override, flaps controller, starter lock out, WIGWAG controller, and other functions there are no other replacements like full screen system monitoring, load monitoring, easy reconfiguration when needed, etc. Comparing a VPX system to C/B's and fuses is like comparing Dial Up to Cable internet. With that said.. I agree that the VPX is not for everyone or every installation. At the minimum it requires a newer glass panel with a decent size screen and some computer knowledge. But, just like glass is the new steam, with tons more functions... ECB's are the new electrical distribution systems with tons more functions.
 
I had a "different" brand of ECB product and after much frustration trying to chase down an electrical gremlin, which is nearly impossible, out it went. I believe the VPX to be a much better product and haven't hear of any issues that plagued some of the other ECB products.

I do have a question begging for an answer. Even our most modern new vehicles still have old fashioned fuses. Why? They have MFD's, cameras, processors, sophisticated sensors and software, etc.... why are auto manufacturers still using fuses?

If I was building new, not sure what direction I would go with my electrical distribution system. I think the feature set of the VPX would be lost on me for my simple VFR missions. I haven't touched my electrical distribution, auto style blade fuses. Out of site out of mind.
 
Two facts about the VPX are clear: 1. I don't recall seeing anyone complaining they don't like the VPX (newer version) and 2. I don't recall seeing anyone removing their VPX and replacing it with C/B's, servo controllers, over voltage indicator/override, flaps controller, starter lock out, WIGWAG controller, and other functions there are no other replacements like full screen system monitoring, load monitoring, easy reconfiguration when needed, etc. Comparing a VPX system to C/B's and fuses is like comparing Dial Up to Cable internet. With that said.. I agree that the VPX is not for everyone or every installation. At the minimum it requires a newer glass panel with a decent size screen and some computer knowledge. But, just like glass is the new steam, with tons more functions... ECB's are the new electrical distribution systems with tons more functions.

Yep - this $2k+ box does all that. In short, for a single battery VFR airplane it is an interesting, if not expensive alternative.

I offer that once you decide on a more robust two battery, two independent avionics buss IFR design builders should take precaution to not have the situation where this one box failing yields a dark panel. I?ve seen the work around to do this and keep the VPX box. At that point however other options open up that may be more attractive to some builders.

In other words, new builders should look at the product as one of many ways to achieve their design objectives.

Carl
 
For the price, features, and reduction of overall system robustness, the VP-X is a non-starter for me. Cool gadget, but I'd reather put $2k more into my avionics.
 
Beer Talk...

Geez - there sure seems to be a lot of strong feelings over this!

Why do modern cars use fuses? Dunno - why do modern airliners use ECB's?
Better be prepared for your panel to go dark if it fails - google schottkey and buy a couple...
I'd rather put an extra $2k into my avionics - did you get your CB's, flap controller, wigwag etc for free?

It appears that the the people that didn't use it say it's worthless and the people that did say they love it...
Can't we all just get along? :eek:
 
If someone asks for an opinion about primers, EFIS/ GPS, engines, props, they're likely to receive a wide variety of answers. Evaluate the merit of the answers for YOUR case and mission and pick one. There are pros and cons to every choice.
 
I'd rather put an extra $2k into my avionics - did you get your CB's, flap controller, wigwag etc for free?

Yes, actually, along with most of the BMS wire I'll be using. Aside from that, fuses and fuse blocks are cheap, reliable, easily sourced and won't keep me AOG while I wait for a black-box factory refurb :cool:
 
Last edited:
Ross

Ross, thanks for the tiniest sliver of reality.

It?s really too bad that it always devolves into ?I don?t like it so it?s bad for everyone else?...

As I have said before, I admire the LEADERS who choose to move the hobby forward instead the FOLLOWERS who choose to stick with the status quo...
 
As I have said before, I admire the LEADERS who choose to move the hobby forward instead the FOLLOWERS who choose to stick with the status quo...

I admire those that chose to build and fly their own airplane, whether they chose to lead, or follow....

If you need/want the feature set, great, if you don’t also great.
At least there are products now that seem to be reliable and relatively inexpensive. As a former “leader” who got burned, twice, on a ECB and an EFIS, following doesn’t seem like such a bad thing. I am not too worried about garnering anybodies respect.

By the way, I don’t think installing a proven product like a VPX is much of a reach.
 
Last edited:
Yep - this $2k+ box does all that. In short, for a single battery VFR airplane it is an interesting, if not expensive alternative.

I offer that once you decide on a more robust two battery, two independent avionics buss IFR design builders should take precaution to not have the situation where this one box failing yields a dark panel. I’ve seen the work around to do this and keep the VPX box. At that point however other options open up that may be more attractive to some builders.

In other words, new builders should look at the product as one of many ways to achieve their design objectives.

Carl

Hmmm, That's funny. I run two batteries with a VPX-Pro and I don't have a problem with my EFIS system or ignitions going out if I lose the VPX. And again, going on 5 years without a glitch on the VPX-Pro. Wish I could say the same for all the other products I / I've used. With all due respect, it's pretty unfair for anyone to give pros and cons on a product they have never used. Opinions in installations is fair game.
 
Last edited:
I do have a question begging for an answer. Even our most modern new vehicles still have old fashioned fuses. Why? They have MFD's, cameras, processors, sophisticated sensors and software, etc.... why are auto manufacturers still using fuses?
Think about how dumb the average driver is, then consider that half are even dumber than that. How many warranty and support calls do you think the dealers would have to eat the first time something tripped? Also, consider the cost of a VP-X versus fuses.


Flying has barriers to entry, both educational (learning aircraft systems) and financial. We can afford--intellectually and fiscally--fancy toys. Joe Blow out on the street, not so much.
 
Think about how dumb the average driver is, then consider that half are even dumber than that. How many warranty and support calls do you think the dealers would have to eat the first time something tripped? Also, consider the cost of a VP-X versus fuses.


Flying has barriers to entry, both educational (learning aircraft systems) and financial. We can afford--intellectually and fiscally--fancy toys. Joe Blow out on the street, not so much.

Must be a cost thing. Not sure average Joe Blow can find the fuse box!
I would think the smarts of a VPX product and it’s ability for annunciation on a display would be easier to troubleshoot. The only thing not easy to troubleshoot is if there was a problem with the unit itself.
Anyway, thanks for giving it a stab.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top