Vertical Power new products

[philb]

VP300 and 400 now out:

http://verticalpower.com/products/


Some folks will like, but won't work here. Too bad, like the -200 concept. Back to redesigning panel!

Phil
RV-10 finishing
Salt Lake

[Snowflake]

It's pretty cool to think that even in a plane as small as an RV, you could have a one-button "get me to an airport" solution. Untested and unproven at this point, of course, but it's nice to see some of the technology that's possible making it down to our level.

I hate to ask what it costs for a VP-400. I didn't bother looking. :P

[Brantel]

Looks like very cool technology.

I am confused on the pricing....

Why can you get a VP-X and a VP-300 for $2,200 less than a VP-400?

What makes up the difference?

[Buggsy2]

I just looked at these too. I am very disappointed in the direction these new models are going.

First, they seem to be entering an already crowded EFIS arena.

Second, the concept of 1-button fly-me-down seems ridiculous. Their website says

"The system automatically engages the autopilot to fly the glide path to the runway, leaving you free to focus on emergency procedures and talk to controllers."

That's exactly the opposite of what we were taught: aviate, navigate, communicate, in that order. It may be that technology can indeed change what we were taught, but I really don't like letting some algorithm determine what IT thinks is the best airport...it may not pick the nearest one!

Third, VP now has given up the flight modes and soft switches that I found so attractive in the VP-200 (and I think to some extent in the VP-100). I've talked to a pilot who installed the VP-200 in two airplanes because he liked those features so much. Flight modes relieve your pilot work load every flight by automatically setting flaps and switches to the different phases of the entire flight. Soft switches remove almost all the physical toggle switches on your panel (though you can still have as many as you want, wired into the VP-200, and then it monitors their position).

Paying many thousands of dollars for a single feature that should never be used just seems bass-ackward. I was really hoping for a unit in between the VP-X (which is basically electronic circuit breakers, wig-wag, and flap/trim motor control) and the VP-200 (which had a large separate display).

[GusBiz]

I compley agree with you Buggs.

The flight modes were awesome.

It meant assisting the piolt with automation not flying it for you.

It has turned from an task deloading device to a safety in case of catestrophic failure. Why!!!!

Have your -400 but bring back the VP-200. It was in a class of its own.

[flyvans.com]

guys, as a very happy user of the VP200 i totally share your concern!

to me this is not going in the right direction... they should've sticked to the electrical / flight mode / switching part and perfect it and leave the other stuff to the EFIS people... yet another EFIS doing essentially the same features in a little bit of a different way is not really what's needed....

i actually expected something between a VP200 and the VPX...
the vp200 is a great workload reducing automation tool, but never taking control away from the pilot.

and the electrical system arena still has possibilities for further VP type developments / innovations.

regards,
bernie

[RichB]

It still does ECB duties, Vertical Power still knows how to code the flight mode functionality (such as reconfiguring for "Go Around" functionality), and now they have hardware and software that knows how to fly the airplane. Software updates for new features are becoming common in this market, so I suspect this is just the beginning...

[LAMPSguy]

Originally Posted by Buggsy2

That's exactly the opposite of what we were taught: aviate, navigate, communicate, in that order. It may be that technology can indeed change what we were taught, but I really don't like letting some algorithm determine what IT thinks is the best airport...it may not pick the nearest one!

I believe it is actually doing exactly what we WERE trained to do, it is just doing a little bit of the first two for you. There have been many different forms of automation that have been helping pilots for years. Typically it begins in more expensive forms, then trickles down. Think FADEC/automatic starting in turbines, or even just turning the key in your car...no more choking the carb for start. We have many autopilot functions to help load shed a bit for easier flying...think autopilot vs simple trim. I remember some guys saying trim works just fine, why have an autopilot. Heck, I have used radios without a "flip/flop" and that is a bit annoying, but a form of automation.

I have not used the VP-400, but I think it has a possibility to bring some help in a complex cockpit. I am learning a much more complex helicopter at work, possibility of 8 simultaneous frequencies PER CREWMEMBER, radar to monitor, FLIR, targeting data, etc, etc, etc. A friend of mine was a test pilot for it about 8 years ago and said even with the automation they fully expect CFIT due to task saturation to be a high possibility.

[MCA]

Glad to see your enthusiasm about the VP-200! We will be adding these features (phase of flight determination, emergency handling, configuration checks, etc.) to the VP-400. It has been part of the design from day one. They're not there now, but will be in the future.

[MCA]

Actually, your information is incorrect.

You can manually choose an airport if you want or let it do it automatically. Simply touch the airport you want to go to.

You can use soft keys on the display to turn device on and off. Or regular switches on your instrument panel.

And it works exactly as we were taught. Press the button and the plane flies to the best place to land. The plane is now in a safe attitude and going where it should. You can now focus on emergency procedures then talking to controllers. Lots of accidents from stalling the aircraft while distracted by emergencies.

Take a look at the web site and you'll see its all there.