What's new
Van's Air Force

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

VP-X Pro failed.. Arggg

Status
Not open for further replies.

FasGlas

Well Known Member
Well, after talking up Vertical Power all these years and never having a failure... I had a failure.. The flaps quit working. After flying with some friends for some breakfast I hopped in to fly home and No Flaps... Nothing, just an error message on the EFIS.. Needless to say I got them back up and flew home.
I contacted Astronics, they wanted $600 to fix it.. Figured I'd open it up and see what there is to see. It's a very nice clean design except for one problem. Very thin solder on surface mount components to be used in an airplane. After resoldering the loose parts back onto the board and doing a last look around I reinstalled it and it's back working as it should.
I hate to say but I've defended my VP-X to all comers for many years. Now I can see if this fails, and I guess they do, the plane can be very grounded. On the other hand, when it works it's a great piece of equipment.
I don't mind eating a serving of crow when it's my turn to dine. All is working now and I would not remove my VP-X over this... But for those that hesitate installing these since the VP-X are "all the eggs in the basket" for power distribution I understand. My advice for anyone installing any ECB's is to have enough knowledge to do work arounds in the event you have to.
 
Great post. Don't think of it as eating crow but rather as an expansion of your big book of experience.

For those here who have VPX and have a similar issue, perhaps you would share your "tricks" to get the flaps back up (or restore other similar functions which may have failed)?

I know that, years ago, a wise man told me to always carry jumper wires with banana clips on them to jump over contactors etc. He joked that one never knew when one would need a spare roach clip. I've used those test leads several times over the years (and never as a roach clip, thank you).
 
Might be prudent for one to carry a soldering iron, magnifier, and some surface mount resistors and caps in their tool bag? Asking for a friend. :)
 
VP-X failure modes

I am at the stage of finalizing the Avionics design and wiring for an RV-7A and gave serious consideration to either buying a VP-X system or designing my own. After all it is just a state machine with a number of HEXFET switches. Using two 10 inch HDX displays takes up a lot of panel space so the big advantage of an integrated power distribution system is no need for panel space. The down side is lack of redundancy and possibility of multiple power distribution points going off line concurrently. The big problem with adding redundancy to an electronic power distribution system is the failure rate of the combining point and individual path monitoring driving up the overall system failure rate and cost. For a small system like a Vans RV where the alternative is a small number of panel mounted circuit breakers it is a no brainer to use the traditional circuit breaker approach unlike the case for large transport aircraft. The failure rates and failure modes for circuit breaker is well documented and the inherent isolation for individual distribution point failures is obvious (in addition to being significantly less expensive). I havent found any discussion of predicted or actual failure rates for the VP-X system to make a direct comparison with traditional CB?s but I wouldnt be surprised to see numbers that put the VP-X system at least an order of magnitude worse overall and having failure modes that are unacceptable in IFR or marginal VFR conditions and really anoying in good VFR when away from home base. Very fortunate it was just the flaps and they failed in a managable position.

KT
 
I have the AFS Advanced Control Module, which I believe is similar to the VPX. I have had no problem to this point, and have not heard of any reliability problems with the unit. I however have installed manual flaps on my -7.
 
Hey folks, just wanted to clear up one point...the $600 charge would be for a complete board replacement, not to repair some broken solder. Usually the best course of action, and most often chosen course of action is to put a new board in to get the latest componentry and a 90 day warranty. If we can fix them, we certainly will. Parts compatibility from older VP-X's to current ones sometimes negates a fix and a new board is the only option.

Randy and I have talked over email several times the last few days, and he knows exactly what he is doing from his experience, so opening a VP-X to make the solder repair is well within his skill range.

I'm glad you were able to fix it without sending it in Randy. Nice job! :cool:
 
Great post. Don't think of it as eating crow but rather as an expansion of your big book of experience.

For those here who have VPX and have a similar issue, perhaps you would share your "tricks" to get the flaps back up (or restore other similar functions which may have failed)?

I know that, years ago, a wise man told me to always carry jumper wires with banana clips on them to jump over contactors etc. He joked that one never knew when one would need a spare roach clip. I've used those test leads several times over the years (and never as a roach clip, thank you).

After fooling with the obvious and getting nowhere I pulled out a trusty set of DVM leads ( I carry a small tool kit with a DVM ), touched the battery + & - to one side of the leads and the other sides to the flap motor wires. The motor worked just fine so I ran the flaps to about 20 degs ( good enough for take off and landing ), and flew home.. A bit slow, but got it home.

I was sponsored by Marc at Vertical Power when he owned the company. Smart guy and very helpful just as Chad has been. Truthfully, I was surprised that a very important component, the actual heart of the electrical system, was not constructed more solid. I've seen this exact same problem on Ford computers, surface mounted parts just fall off from thin solder and continued vibration. Needs to be far more beefy IMHO...

There are other threads here about VP-X and other ECB failures, one even has a poll of installs and failures. I don't think it's a fair poll when taking into consideration that the install is only as good as the installer. So, I wouldn't blame ALL failures on the ECB's posted in the thread. With all the said I did have a chance to see the guts of my VP-X, I had a failure, I got the plane home and I resolved the problem.. And in the process I enhanced my VP-X to future failures. I don't recommend anyone without electronic experience to open one up and start working in it. I hope this shines a bit more light on the ECB debate..
 
ECB Failures

Reading your post about circuit board issues only convinces me that making the decision to use trusted CB technology is the right choice for me.
I wish there were real data and predicted performance data available on the VP-X and other ECB's. The idea of having an intelligent CB system is appealing. The reality of having a panel with old school thermal CB's is a bit cheesy but it is a known quantity with real world data to support failure modes and effects analysis (FMEA) and failure probabilities based on known data from electronic component manufacturers and in service data.

ECB technology for certified aerospace applications has FMEA and predicted failure probabilities together with qualification test and burn in reliability data that can be compared with predictions to gain an overall impression of the quality of the engineering design and manufacture.
Ask me how I know.

We wouldn't leave to chance using hardware store bought bolts in a critical structural location on our aircraft so why would we do something equivalent in a critical location in the electrical system.

We should ask and expect to see actual and predicted performance data from supplier that are selling equipment so we can make our own judgement about acceptability of the risks we are incurring by installing their equipment in our aircraft.
KT
 
so...

So, we should "expect to see actual and predicted performance data from supplier" in order to make the case for ECBs (and other gadgets) before we use them?

Seems to me that we might see some actual data, and that would be helpful, but the predicted data implies liability...and THAT is one reason why "certified" equipment costs much, much more than experimental.

It is all about risk..how much is each individual willing to accept. As you said, for you, a manual c/b panel is what you are comfortable with. That isn't going to be the same for everyone...
 
I've seen this exact same problem on Ford computers, surface mounted parts just fall off from thin solder and continued vibration. Needs to be far more beefy IMHO...

Could someone add conformal coating then pot the whole thing in epoxy to make sure nothing falls off the board? If this is indeed a viable option, it could be "retrofitted" to units currently in use.

Assuming it doesn't prevent proper cooling of the components...
 
I had a similar issue with my VPX box on my recently completed RV-7A. In my case I was getting an overspeed fault on every landing, while being well below the flap limit speeds. I was able to reset the fault and get the flaps up. I too was advised that problems with flaps on the early VPX boxes was common and the fix was $600 for a new upgraded board.

My good friend, Tom Berge, who has built an RV-6A and a RV-7A, has helped countless other builders with their projects, helps with panel upgrades, does pre-buy inspections, does RV check outs and has a couple thousand hours flying RVs is a proponent of keeping it simple. He asks the question, when was the last time you replaced a fuse in any car you have ever owned? My answer and I bet the answer of most people is zero. So if you wire your electrical system correctly, one wire and one circuit at a time, you should have a electrical system as reliable as all the cars you have owned over the years.

Unfortunately, I did not have this discussion with Tom before I made my choice for the more complex approach. I was attracted to all the added functionality the VPX offers. So I am hopeful that my VPX, with the new circuit board, will give me years of trouble free use. If I was starting a new project, I would go the simpler way for sure.
 
maybe planned obsolescence

Could these breakdowns inside the VP-X likely be due to a bit of planned obsolescence; inadequate, i.e. too light, soldering of components in an environment that shakes and rattles a lot? Or an oversight in the development process? Did the bench testing include long-term vibration?
 
Is anyone doing anything to isolate the VPX from the vibration of the airframe? I was thinking a set of rubber grommets to stand it off and isolate it might be a worthwhile venture.
 
How many VP-X users have never had any parts fall off the internal boards?

Maybe there have been more but I don't remember any other than the OP in this thread.

My VP-X Pro has given great service to date. It may fail tomorrow but today it works great. I have seen the internals and it is a work of art inside. Very high quality.

The one thing I don't like on the VP-X is the main power lug is easy to over-torque and break. Main power terminals need to be good-n-tight and good-n-tight has the potential to break those main lug terminals.

Even though the VPX-Pro has served me well, I most likely won't use one on my RV10 due to:

  1. I doubt it is really any cheaper once all things are considered
  2. People constantly telling me why I should not use a VPX
  3. Garmin now has the GAD 27 which duplicates some of the features of the VPX
  4. A full IFR RV-10 with dual or more screens typically needs more circuits than the VPX Pro provides
  5. The VPX integration and screens consumes valuable resources in the EFIS/MFD it is connected to

Things I will miss:

  1. Current monitoring and fault indication for every circuit
  2. Ability to switch each circuit from the EFIS/MFD without having a physical switch
  3. Ability to gang multiple circuits to a single physical switch electronically
  4. Chad Jenson is my friend and provides awesome service/support to the VP-X user base
 
Last edited:
I've had the opportunity to inspect various PCBs offered for Experimental aviation electronics and been surprised that very few have Conformal coating. I've seen bare PCBs directly exposed to the elements (rain) under the cowling with no conformal or epoxy coatings applied. That's just plain scary.

Conformal has definitely shown to increase resistance to humidity, moisture and vibration effects and is certainly not expensive.

Any manufacturers not using it should consider it IMO.
 
If you think about it... We are the "Testers" for most of the equipment we install. Except for the few certified parts we use like Lycoming engines, most radios, tires, etc... It's ALL experimental, and that means we are the lab rats. But the benefit is the price, we save thousands.
CB's fail, certified equipment and parts fail, even fuses are not 100%. I haven't installed other ECB's just VP-X, so I can't opine on the others. The extra features, functionality, clean panel and ease of installation is the attractive part... The single source of failure is the ugly part. I haven't heard of a complete failure of a VP-X, only partial failures.
IMHO potting is not an option for serviceability nor would it solve a cold solder joint problem. I don't think it's a planned failure by the manufacture, it's more of a quality control issue. Under the conditions we use all this stuff the manufactures need to lean towards the beefy side rather than the "home stereo" side. Emag suffered severe growing pains from very poor quality control. Poor design with parts falling off and nearly 100% failure rate, and they continue to have problems, yet people still install them. I hated them.
When you buy experimental equipment you get no test data, you test it. Certified equipment goes through miles of red tape and thousands of hours of testing, and you pay for it. When you're looking for equipment you look for reviews and the reputation of the manufacture. I can tell you that the VP-X is a well designed well built product but it's not 100% perfect. I haven't seen the new version PCB's so I can't comment. (Maybe Chad would like me to review one)
One thing I never liked about the VP-X is that it's a web based configuration, you can not configure the system unless you are logged onto the Vertical Power website. Not a problem now but in the event there's no more Vertical Power we can no longer configure our VP-X's.
ECB's are the future and I'm sure they will overcome their growing pains and perhaps design in bypasses the same as other equipment we fly.
 
....
Even though the VPX-Pro has served me well, I most likely won't use one on my RV10 due to:

  1. I doubt it is really any cheaper once all things are considered
  2. People constantly telling me why I should not use a VPX
  3. Garmin now has the GAD 27 which duplicates some of the features of the VPX
  4. A full IFR RV-10 with dual or more screens typically needs more circuits than the VPX Pro provides
  5. The VPX integration and screens consumes valuable resources in the EFIS/MFD it is connected to

...

Interesting list...:)

1. May be more $$ but after building my -6A with a drop down fuse panel with 3 separate busses on it I believe my wiring will be much easier. Switched things go straight to the VPx and small wires go in one bundle to the switches. I anticipate less wiring time and less of a rats nest.

2. Yes, along with not much backed up comments/data. No-one answered my post #4 :)

3. Only if you buy Garmin - not relevant for Dynon users.

4. I haven't seen that yet. Might be true if you want to put 5 different cabin lighting circuits on separate fuses/ECB

5. More data on this would be good, but I would thought the VPx might actually replace some of the PFD functions and it becomes a possible overloaded communications issue.


If you follow The VPx back-up method B for critical avionics and have backup batteries for your big screens you can have an electrical system with very few (no systems are perfect) single point failures.

All of above assumes at least a single magneto on your engine.
 
Last edited:
Just for clarification on my installation (if anyone cares), I don't run my ignitions though the VP-X. I do have dual Lion batteries, one is a backup for minimum electronics and ignitions, it bypasses the VP-X. In the event I ever had a complete failure my plane will still run and I will have navigation and a radio. I would certainly recommend backup with any ECB's.
 
Partial panel failure?

OP stated the flaps would not retract, but after bypassing and raising to 20 degs, he flew home.

I would label that a 'partial failure' on a system that could be worked-around on the ground. Even a fuse or CB on the flap circuit could fail (in-flight) and leave a flap position that needs intervention. Aviate, Navigate ... Communicate. Land & Fix.

Apparently he trusted the VPX enough to (work-around) re-position flaps and fly home.

A simple alternate bus design could be wired into the VPX plan to run flaps on a conventional fuse panel (we see std fuse concept in the factory RV-14). There is no requirement to wire flaps into the VPX design originally.

At least he didn't have to manually crank the gear down, or up.
 
...
Apparently he trusted the VPX enough to (work-around) re-position flaps and fly home.

A simple alternate bus design could be wired into the VPX plan to run flaps on a conventional fuse panel (we see std fuse concept in the factory RV-14). There is no requirement to wire flaps into the VPX design originally.

....

Again, my post #4 :)

But is this case the VPX was providing additional functionality for multiple flap positions, just like the other units I mention. I see little difference in the failure.
 
Again, my post #4 :)

But is this case the VPX was providing additional functionality for multiple flap positions, just like the other units I mention. I see little difference in the failure.

No, the VP-X just runs the flaps up and down. I don't use the step feature. I really don't understand your post #4 question... Those systems would be susceptible to failure just like any other piece of equipment. The benefit of multiple systems is no single failure point but it doesn't stop failures. Don't forget that for every piece of equipment made there's hundreds of other pieces of equipment it must interface with. Times that by all the pieces in the chain. Unlike a certified aircraft that uses and tests a "Package", we don't do this. There's rarely any two experimentals that use the exact same parts in the build.

It would be a bit complex to add a bypass flaps switch considering the added parts and wiring, you can't be connected to either circuit at the same time since the motor is shorted for braking in the neutral position. Even still there's lots of other circuits that can fail, you can't bypass them all.
 
One thing I never liked about the VP-X is that it's a web based configuration, you can not configure the system unless you are logged onto the Vertical Power website. Not a problem now but in the event there's no more Vertical Power we can no longer configure our VP-X's.

I use the VPX Configurator which is a stand alone application for the VP-X Sport/Pro.
 
Last edited:
I LOVE MY VPX!

I have the sport version in my 9A and I am putting the pro version in the 10 I am building now. I have the same concerns about failure that I have with the single engine, single switches, single air-frame, single exhaust system, single starter, etc, etc, etc. But the benefit I get from the VPX outweighs the potential failure modes.

Some of the concerns others have posted don?t bother me as much.

1. OP board failure: he mentioned that his VPX was ?sponsored? by Marc. I suspect that also means it was one of the first to be produced and that the board was hand soldered. Today?s models are production quality and most likely done by an automated process to improve quality.
2. Flaps: I rarely use any flaps on takeoff and I regularly practice landings without them. If I lost the ability to control my flaps its not a big deal. I can say the same thing about most of the devices powered by my VPX and for those devices that need power to keep the fan turning I have a backup power buss that can be activated by the flip of a switch.
3. Circuits: My avionics plan for the 10 includes a fully IFR capable avionics suite with a VPX Pro at the heart of it. I do use external ?busses? for things like accessories, aux avionics, and the autopilot where the buss is fed by a single outlet of the VPX and then each component is fed from there by a fused connection. I do this now with my 9A and have had a situation where the VPX detected a fault and tripped the circuit before a fuse even had a chance to blow.
4. I don?t need a GAD 27 if I have a VPX.

There are so many benefits to having visibility into my electrical system that even if it does cost me more to purchase the VPX I think its worth it. I have had at least two instances of electrical component (non-critical) failures that I was able to identify in flight simply because I had visibility into each individual circuit. A good example of this is when I recently wired up the heated seats in my 9A. One of them was not working properly but because I could see how much current the circuit was pulling I was able to isolate the issue. Granted the seat heat is not critical (unless you ask my wife) but it would have been harder if I would have had to try to troubleshoot using a fluke.
 
If the flaps fail in the up position on an RV, you just fly it home, assuming you're not trying to get into a 1000 foot strip. 85% of my landings are flapless, simply no big deal at all. On a Lancair maybe a bit different story.
 
Last edited:
No, the VP-X just runs the flaps up and down. I don't use the step feature. I really don't understand your post #4 question... Those systems would be susceptible to failure just like any other piece of equipment. The benefit of multiple systems is no single failure point but it doesn't stop failures. Don't forget that for every piece of equipment made there's hundreds of other pieces of equipment it must interface with. Times that by all the pieces in the chain. Unlike a certified aircraft that uses and tests a "Package", we don't do this. There's rarely any two experimentals that use the exact same parts in the build.

It would be a bit complex to add a bypass flaps switch considering the added parts and wiring, you can't be connected to either circuit at the same time since the motor is shorted for braking in the neutral position. Even still there's lots of other circuits that can fail, you can't bypass them all.

My mistake, I thought you were using the built-in flap positioning system of the VPx - one of the functions it comes with. :eek:

One of it's cost offsetting features, if you use it...:)
 
Conformal coating

Conformal coating is standard and expected on most electronics in the high end aviation and commercial marine world. Applying it after market to non certified electronics used in the experimental world one has to ensure it is not applied in places where it would be detrimental to the components. On board potentiometers and connectors are good examples of where care and experience ( and good masking) need to be applied. Using conformal coating to hold component on a poorly designed circuit board is optomistic at best. Repair of a conformally coated circuit board is time consuming and may be impractical depending on the type of conformal coating material used. So once a board has been conformally coated it should be considered to be scap if there is a subsequent failure. Its generally pretty obvious if a circuit board has been designed for automated component placement and been built that way or hand assembled. Having the right equipment to repair a surface mount component board is essential. Applying conformal coating after market for the first time without any training is not a good idea.

KT
 
OK, I'll try to address all these posts. In my case a coating would not have changed the outcome. One of the FET's did not get soldered properly to the PCB. A cold solder joint is a point of resistance, not to mention the FET was not tight to the PCB. The FET joint still would have failed regardless of any coating or potting. The good news was that having no coating allowed me to find and repair the joint. I beefed up the rest while I was in there.

The flaps were stuck on full down, well over 40 degrees, you only use full flaps on landing in a Lancair. Even at less than 20 degrees I flew it back under 140 MPH. I'm not sure a Lancair would flew very well with full flaps.

The VP-X Pro I have is not an old unit. I got it brand new from MGL (Via Vertical Power) just before Marc sold out. But there is a new PCB version I've been told by Chad.

The stepped flap function is a real nice feature but I didn't opt to install the position sensor. I wanted to use the full up one touch, but need the sensor installed.

There are two different configuration programs. One online and the other in Windows. They do different functions. The one online sets up the pin out wiring and labeling, etc. The windows stand alone is for loading, testing and adjusting the VP-X. I have asked if the online program can be re-written to be used in windows but I got a NO. Oh well..

Again... I'm not trashing this ECB or any ECB, I don't want my posts to be taken that way.. The VP-X is a great invention and I don't regret installing it. It saved me lots of work, does tons of nice features, features that can not be had by any other means and has been very reliable up to last Sunday. That failure showed the need to know my plane, gave me lots to think about. What should be taken from my post is if you're going to install anything that can potentially cause a major failure know how to bypass the problem. If you're not building and installing your own electronics... Maybe ECB's aren't for you.
 
Last edited:
Are conformal coatings easy to retro apply?

As mentioned, you should have experience with this and know where and more importantly, where not to apply it.

Unless it's machine applied after the board is loaded and baked (usually sprayed on), we prefer the brush-on stuff. Easier to get where you want it without masking and can be applied much thicker if desired.

Of course, proper soldering is much more important and I've seen some of that which isn't so good and was missed by QC as well (if there is any real QC process).
 
There are two different configuration programs. One online and the other in Windows. They do different functions. The one online sets up the pin out wiring and labeling, etc. The windows stand alone is for loading, testing and adjusting the VP-X.

You don?t have to use the Web based planner tool. It is optional. All config can be done from the standalone configuration program.
 
As mentioned, you should have experience with this and know where and more importantly, where not to apply it.

Unless it's machine applied after the board is loaded and baked (usually sprayed on), we prefer the brush-on stuff. Easier to get where you want it without masking and can be applied much thicker if desired.

Of course, proper soldering is much more important and I've seen some of that which isn't so good and was missed by QC as well (if there is any real QC process).

Hi Ross,

Conformal coating is high on my list of upgrades for the VP-X. The PPS has taken an EXTRAORDINARY amount of time and resources of the last 4 years (Ugh...I hate saying that out loud or typing it), but with that product going to production in February, I'm hoping that we can take a renewed look and focus on VP-X upgrades this year.

All soldering (all of VP-X construction) has been upgraded to meet ISO 9001 and ASI 9100 QC standards since it is built in the same facility as other certified products. Conformal coating, while not required, would be a fantastic addition to the current VP-X QC standards and I'm hopeful it will happen this year.

Before anyone asks...I have no idea how retrofitting CC would work, but I'd be happy to find out.
 
You don’t have to use the Web based planner tool. It is optional. All config can be done from the standalone configuration program.

Absolutely true...web planner is not required (none of the OEM or panel builders use the web planner as far as I am aware of).

I am also hoping that we can move away from Ethernet and PC only configurator applications in the near future.

My list is long, but distinguished. :D
 
Solid state electrical system controls

I thought back to the comments expressed in earlier posts regarding reliability of automotive power distribution and fuse systems and that led me off on a bit of a loop reflecting on the old technology, the current technology and potential availability and adaptability of electric vehicle (EV) technology to experimental aircraft.
Adapting automotive components to our needs has appeal - development costs are ammortized over a large production base, reliability, performance and product cost are primary considerations. Additionally there are requirements to meet a harsh environment. Production batch sizes are large so production variability is well controlled. Developmental and qualification testing is focussed and well funded and there is a strong motivation to get the right people, the right resources and the necessary experience and structure to the program to be succesful.
A developmental program that took 4 years to bring a relatively simple power management component to a production launch probably resulted in a lot of soul searching and a determination to do better in the future - a serious learning experience. That data point doesn?t bode well for the initial post launch success of the product and certainly raises a number of interesting questions that would be difficult to answer in the presence of the customer base.
In a past world that I escaped from there would have been a post mortem examination and not just the program would have been on the table.

For the time being,at least, I will stick with the simple clunky solenoid technology.

KT
 
A developmental program that took 4 years to bring a relatively simple power management component to a production launch probably resulted in a lot of soul searching and a determination to do better in the future - a serious learning experience. That data point doesn’t bode well for the initial post launch success of the product and certainly raises a number of interesting questions that would be difficult to answer in the presence of the customer base.


KT

I don't think it's valid to assume all companies involved in Experimental electronics development and manufacturing have the resources of a large automotive OEM. In fact, none do, save maybe Garmin.

While development of a new product is underway, the company still has to manufacture, market, support and ship the existing design to keep money coming in the door. Manpower may be limited.

Testing often uncovers problems in a new design which will result in multiple re-designs and more testing to validate both hardware and software changes.

Taking a while to get a new product to market may mean that lots of testing was done to arrive at a more reliable device in the end rather than pointing to anything wrong. Long term testing and validation is the mark of a good development project in my view.

We learn from failure- hopefully not in the hands of customers though...
 
I am sure there is a story behind why the development of the power distribution system has taken four years. Absent particular knowledge of the reasons it seems unfair speculation to suggest that this does not bode well for initial post-launch success and discussions that would not wish to be held in the presence of the customer base.
My dealings with both Marc Ausman and Chad Jensen - I have installed a VP-X in my RV-6A - left me with a great deal of confidence in the knowledge and integrity behind the VP-X product.
Research and development of alternatives to the existing technology and taking on the not inconsiderable financial risks that must be involved in doing so are to be applauded by our community.
Bill
 
VP-X Failures

I think you may be reading too much into my post. I really am a true believer in the technology especially when I see data. The data sets you free. No need for speculation or guessing - there is a solid basis for making a decision. Cost is a factor but not at the top of the list. If there was a compelling technical reason to go with an electronic power management system I would go for it. Engineering data is one thing we are sorely lacking in regard to the VP-X system. I am not expecting to see intellectual property data or anything close - just predicted reliability and probability of critical failures to compare to a conventional CB system. Of course the same expectation (may be more so) would apply to a power isolation and management system unit since the risk of total power loss may be greater. I have no experience with the VP-X or VP and you may indeed be right that they are great people and have a great product but in the absence of supporting data the jury is out and what little data there is doesn't give me confidence that I wouldn't be a part of their customer development team if I installed their equipment.
KT
 
Keith,

What your asking for typically does not exist or is not shared with customers in the experimental aviation business. Would be nice if it was sometimes but it is what it is.
 
Last edited:
Keith,

What your asking for typically does not exit or is not shared with customers in the experimental aviation business. Would be nice if it was sometimes but it is what it is.

Correct. That kind of data requires 6 and 7 figure R&D budgets, which puts you in the big-boy camp that lives in the certified world. If you want it, it's available - just not cheap.
 
Randy, Sorry to hear about your flap problem, and also glad you were able to fix it. We certainly never expected DIY repairs on those boards.

I'm still amazed that the same debate rages on as when we introduced electronic circuit breakers in 2007. :) Some still stick to the old mechanical switch, relays, and breakers dogma, while others enthusiastically embrace newer, more reliable technology. The great thing about exp aircraft is we can each make that choice for ourselves!
 
I'm still amazed that the same debate rages on as when we introduced electronic circuit breakers in 2007. :) Some still stick to the old mechanical switch, relays, and breakers dogma, while others enthusiastically embrace newer, more reliable technology.

Let's remove dogma from the equation. Where is the data which indicates that the current crop of EAB electronic circuit breaker systems is more reliable than the legacy designs?
 
I am in the process of installing a GTX system in my RV-9 and was thinking of using a VP-X system. The failure of the flap switch mentioned earlier would make a off field landing probably fatal. I?m thinking now of still using the VP-X but wiring my flaps separately on another switch. Any thoughts on this?
.
 
I am in the process of installing a GTX system in my RV-9 and was thinking of using a VP-X system. The failure of the flap switch mentioned earlier would make a off field landing probably fatal. I?m thinking now of still using the VP-X but wiring my flaps separately on another switch. Any thoughts on this?
.

My manual flaps work just fine!
 
I am in the process of installing a GTX system in my RV-9 and was thinking of using a VP-X system. The failure of the flap switch mentioned earlier would make a off field landing probably fatal. I?m thinking now of still using the VP-X but wiring my flaps separately on another switch. Any thoughts on this?
.

What in the world makes you think that?
 
I am in the process of installing a GTX system in my RV-9 and was thinking of using a VP-X system. The failure of the flap switch mentioned earlier would make a off field landing probably fatal. I?m thinking now of still using the VP-X but wiring my flaps separately on another switch. Any thoughts on this?
.

Now we are past single-point failures and into multiple failures. :rolleyes:
 
My flaps have failed multiple times. The problem was never my VPX but rather Vans motor allowing grease into the wrong area. The difference in stall speed clean versus full flaps is something like 7 knots...which is not a life and death spread IMHO.

This eggs in one basket argument will rage on forever. I have one engine, one prop, one governor, one fuel selector valve which feeds the engine with one fuel line, one fuel servo, one control stick (that I can reach), one mixture knob, one throttle (that I can reach)...and one VPX-pro. Any of those fail and I?ll have a problem....the least of which is the VPX.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top