Vertical Power new products

[Buggsy2]

Originally Posted by 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.

My mistake. Buried in a list of features are these two which for me are the most important:

• Control devices with switches, the display, or while on the ground using your iPad or iPhone
• Rules-based switching that allows you to turn devices on or off based on user-defined rules. For example, you can turn on the boost pump automatically above 10,000 ft. Or turn on strobe lights above 50 KIAS

The price to get these has also gone up $2000 (from the VP-200), to $8000 not including "extras" like wire harness, etc.

This is way too rich for my build. I'm simply not going to pay that much for something that does something I don't want (fly-to-airport) and duplicates components I will have (EFIS). I can and will put a full Dynon Skyview in my RV-9A (large screen and 2-axis autopilots) for about the same price as the VP-400:

$3600 10" Skyview bundle
$1200 ADAHRS Module
$ 600 Engine Monitoring Module
$1650 Two autopilot servos
$2000 Misc (software, pitot, blah blah)
====
$9050 Total

VP is heading in the wrong direction for me. I would love to have something price between the VP-X and VP-400 but there isn't anything useful. The VP-300 duplicates everything I'll get with the Dynon, adding the unwanted fly-to-airport, and not providing the flight modes and soft switches.

If you sense I'm quite disappointed in these latest products, you are correct. VP seems to be targeting the very high end, 4-place experimental market, that wants redundancy for IFR/IMC conditions. VP is missing out, in my opinion, on the larger experimental market that is almost entirely VFR but would like flight modes and soft switches. The VP-X doesn't provide those and frankly I'm not convinced it's worth even $1800 to save me only the circuit breaker wiring. It's easy enough to get flap/trim motor control and wig-wagging separately and cheaper.

Please, VP, rethink your direction and make something for the VFR, 2-place RV market.

[philb]

Buggsy,

I'm totally with you on this.

I was willing to buy (and had my order in to Stein) to buy the VP200 based on word of mouth of those early adopters.

The new products are much more expensive, have features not wanted, and (to date) don't have the features I do want. Even if those features are added back (at some later date), I'm not willing to pay the additional $1650 - difference between the VP200 and the VP400. Assuming price stays the same with the VP-200 features incorporated back into the VP400.

Although was entertaining the VPX or Pro, I may just rethink the ECB thing and wire conventionally. Some would say that this is the price of progress. I would say it's the price of obsolescence, to the detriment of a great product.

Really disappointed.

Phil
RV10, Finishing
Salt Lake City

[Aiki_Aviator]

I concur with the setiments of the VP-200 validity. The $8k is too much for content that is already prevelent in the existing EIS without all of the benefits.

I was looking forward to an option that was a VP-200 integrated with the existing EFIS offerings and doing away with the screen utilising the benefits of the EFIS as a windowed input and utilising the input capability of the existing EFIS offerings.

To me, this would be a fantastic middle ground.

Maybe a $4k offering of a VP-200 plus (the VP-200 with full EFIS integration) would be a good option. I as one would pay for that, however the $8k for the VP-400 is just too expensive for the benefits.

In absence of the VP-200, the VPX-Pro is the only viable option.

Mark...... what about a VP-200 Plus???? ;-)

[MCA]

We have looked at the VP-200 option integrated with an EFIS (from another vendor) for several years. It would be a great product no doubt.

I don't think anyone here understands the amount of work it would take to do that though. It would be a significant effort on both our part and the EFIS partner's part. You'd likely pay more than you would for the existing VP-200. Don't forget, the VP-200 was priced in 2006 and we have not raised the price since.

You'll see that the VP-400 display is actually quite different than primary EFIS displays. It is optimized for getting you on the ground safely, while the primary EFIS is optimized for navigation in the airspace system. So that is our platform going forward and it will eventually incorporate the VP-200 features.

The Runway Seeker is a really good technology that I hope will save some people in the future. Take some time and watch the videos, it is pretty amazing to watch it in action!

[GusBiz]

Marc,

We appreciate that more products take time and people.

What we were saying is that you had a great product, one that was a leader in the market, one that we all liked and now you got rid of it to give us something that it seems no one asked for and charging us more for it.

Can you explain why you decided to go in this direction so that we can at least not scratch our heads as to what on earth made you go from what was a winning position to one of an unknown, unproven and possibily one not supported by the wider market but just a niche group.

I am certain the -400 works well, I would expect nothing less from you guys, but its the absence of a good feature set, for a feature set that doesn't seem to be asked for by the market.

do tell us the story of how you came to conclude that this is what everyone wanted.

[Strasnuts]

Most EFIS systems now have nearest airport and autopilots. Just push direct to and enter. Does it take in consideration of terrain, airspeed, configuration, etc.? A couple of seconds of button pushing doesn't make a difference in the big picture.

[Sig600]

Originally Posted by MCA

We have looked at the VP-200 option integrated with an EFIS (from another vendor) for several years. It would be a great product no doubt.

I don't think anyone here understands the amount of work it would take to do that though. It would be a significant effort on both our part and the EFIS partner's part. You'd likely pay more than you would for the existing VP-200. Don't forget, the VP-200 was priced in 2006 and we have not raised the price since.

You'll see that the VP-400 display is actually quite different than primary EFIS displays. It is optimized for getting you on the ground safely, while the primary EFIS is optimized for navigation in the airspace system. So that is our platform going forward and it will eventually incorporate the VP-200 features.

The Runway Seeker is a really good technology that I hope will save some people in the future. Take some time and watch the videos, it is pretty amazing to watch it in action!

If you can enable the PIN code to enable the ignition, with the VP-X... I won't complain about the VP-200 going away.

[Buggsy2]

Originally Posted by MCA

You'll see that the VP-400 display is actually quite different than primary EFIS displays. It is optimized for getting you on the ground safely, while the primary EFIS is optimized for navigation in the airspace system. So that is our platform going forward and it will eventually incorporate the VP-200 features.

The Runway Seeker is a really good technology that I hope will save some people in the future. Take some time and watch the videos, it is pretty amazing to watch it in action!

Marc, I don't doubt that it is nifty technology. I haven't heard of anything like it: a Nearest Airport button on steroids. But I and I believe many potential customers don't want it. If I wanted to spend a few thousand more dollars for safety there are a number of choices I'd make before Runway Seeker. It's a solution looking for a problem.

I'm a civil engineer and have spent my entire career in numerical modeling of water. I've seen elaborate solutions proposed and worked on at great cost, using gee-whiz technology, but it's not what's needed for the problem at hand. I sense a similar situation with these new products.

Well, you've heard from some potential customers here. At the very least could VP continue to sell the VP-200? It's priced somewhat higher than I would like (even at 2006 pricing) but after talking to a guy who was very enthusiastic about it, I was going to plan my instrument panel around it and buy it. The VP-400 is simply out of the question...the VP-300 doesn't have anything I want, and the VP-X seems of marginal benefit/cost to me.

I've talked to you at your exhibit at airshows and you always seemed a straight-forward guy. I'm appealing to that characteristic and ask you, again, consider the 2-place experimentals that are primarily VFR planes. If something happens we can just push our Nearest button on our GPS and fly and navigate our own way while trying to figure out why the engine stopped or the electrics went out and we're on battery.

Thanks for listening--

[Sig600]

Originally Posted by Buggsy2

Marc, I don't doubt that it is nifty technology. I haven't heard of anything like it: a Nearest Airport button on steroids. But I and I believe many potential customers don't want it. If I wanted to spend a few thousand more dollars for safety there are a number of choices I'd make before Runway Seeker. It's a solution looking for a problem.

I'm a civil engineer and have spent my entire career in numerical modeling of water. I've seen elaborate solutions proposed and worked on at great cost, using gee-whiz technology, but it's not what's needed for the problem at hand. I sense a similar situation with these new products.

Well, you've heard from some potential customers here. At the very least could VP continue to sell the VP-200? It's priced somewhat higher than I would like (even at 2006 pricing) but after talking to a guy who was very enthusiastic about it, I was going to plan my instrument panel around it and buy it. The VP-400 is simply out of the question...the VP-300 doesn't have anything I want, and the VP-X seems of marginal benefit/cost to me.

I've talked to you at your exhibit at airshows and you always seemed a straight-forward guy. I'm appealing to that characteristic and ask you, again, consider the 2-place experimentals that are primarily VFR planes. If something happens we can just push our Nearest button on our GPS and fly and navigate our own way while trying to figure out why the engine stopped or the electrics went out and we're on battery.

Thanks for listening--

What ^^he^^ said.

I will admit, having a standalone EFIS for back up that also has this capability is pretty cool. If only for the fact that it is constantly looking for emergency landing sites. Pretty cool. Not sure how much I would trust something like this to fly the airplane to a point of landing, while managing energy given all the potential variables. Passenger still has to land right?

[Steve Ashby]

I can hardly believe the tone of what I am reading on this thread. Marc and all of the engineers at Vertical Power have obviously invested an incredble amount of time and a boat load of money to come up with a new innovation designed to enhance safety. Is that all we can do is sit around like a bunch of old farts and complain that we don't need new innovations? Geez Louise.

I for one can't wait to get to Sun-N-Fun and see VP's new systems. They obviously enhance safety and push the technical envelope. If you do not think these new features are worth the money, then don't buy them. I for one am willing to spend extra for an electronic ticket into the 21st century and to help insure that my future flights are a little more safe and secure.

Sure we should be looking at new innovations with a critical eye (like turbine engines on RVs and hovercraft in Popular Mechanics) but let's not pillory established and respected innovators like Marc Ausman with careless criticisms. We owe it to our brother RVers to study all of the information available (the VP website has lots of information) and encourage responsible progress.