Vertical Power new products

[Buggsy2]

Originally Posted by MCA

And I don't think it is reasonable to ask us to sell VP-200 feature set (which by the way has about 50,000 lines of code more than the VP-X) for a VP-X price or a tad more.

Wait, I don't think anyone is asking for that. What I'm asking is simply continue selling the VP-200 at its current price, $6000 (can't remember exactly). No improvements. Bug fixes only at most.

Or, sell the VP-200 hardware and make the source code open source, or available via non-disclosure and no-liability agreements, and let us debug it ourselves. There are programmers in the experimental world that could do it.

I'm searching for any way to continue the VP-200 and Vertical Power continue to make money from it. If there is a chance VP could change its mind, PM me.

[GusBiz]

I for one want to do business with Marc, have total faith in what he does and think he is pretty much a genius from the point of view of producing something so simple, so easy to use and so much in demand.

I believe that he is leaving money on the table by not providing the -200.

I would pay more for it. probably $2000 more for it. I just can't get anything to do what it does, and I have the money and I want what I want.

There is a long list of clients here that will not be spedning the $6.5k with VP and I feel that it could add up to possibly over $100k.

If you are one of those people please write to Marc and state your case and then he can add up what he would be seeing in revenue if he were to outsource its production. That way he can make a business.

I believe that simply Time, money and people limitations is why he can't offer the VP-200, if he produces the VP-400. (well that is what the man is saying anyway)

If you want the product, make it worth his while.

Marc, I have only one REAL complaint, the screen size. If it was shorter, the same size screeen and the VP-200 I would be OK with it all. It just doesn't fit on my panel now.

[sstellarv10]

I just watched the video for the VP400 and for someone that was going to get the VP 200 anyway the extra 1500 doesn't bother me at all . I think they made enough additions to the 200 that it makes sense to me, I was going to put a backup EFIS in the right side of my panel anyway so it actually saves me money putting the 400 instead of the 200 and a backup EFIS. This will definately be in my panel, just my opinion

[msturgis]

The VP-200 going away issue aside. I think this new product is great and one of the things I love about exp. aviation. Companies are able to be cutting edge while avoiding a lot of the red tapes that cause the price point to be out of reach for most of us.

I addition to flying for my day job, I have been heavily involved with aviaiton human factors/automation benefits and pit falls over the past ten years. Air carriers use the "swiss cheese" model for safety, refering to the fact that because there are many layers no single hole goes straight to the core. Having layers of safety in aviation help us to greatly reduce our risks.

Someone mentioned that the VPX-400 might cause someone to over look a much more suitable landing site. I fully agree with this. Putting all your faith in one option, or one "layer" is not a good thing. One problem we see more and more is pilots becoming too dependant on automation. I find it amusing when flying with a new First Officer who is praying for bad weather so he can fly a coupled ILS vs shooting a visual approach where autopilots can be cumbersome.

I truly believe this feature can save lives and become a useful layer in our overall safety plan. Obviously taking all options in to consideration, this product has the potential to remove a huge workload from an already stressful time (which is the point of automation)

I applaud VPX for their work and look forward to all their future products and enhancements.

[Buggsy2]

@Matt: as you can see in my previous posts here I was vocal in my lack of enthusiasm for the new products. If VP wants to get in the business of saving lives it's a noble cause. The problem for those of us who want some automation is the huge gap in their product line. The VP-X Pro is $1800 and provides electronic circuit breakers, wigwag, trim & flap motor control. The no-longer-sold -200 built on that with soft switches (so you didn't have a dozen toggle switches on your panel) and flight modes which was a great workload saver in flight.

The VP-300 doesn't build on that so I don't count it. Finally at $8000 you have the -400 which only promises it will do what the old -200 did, plus the "life-saver" Runway Seeker.

This is a huge jump in price to maybe get the genuinely useful work savings the -200 offered. It is this huge price gap that bothers many?not the new product's capabilities which are impressive. I retain my doubt about the marginal benefit/cost of Runway Seeker but that is quite separate from my concern about the price gap.

I am going to do some inquiries on my own about putting together my own gizmo as an addition to the VP-X. Consider that the wiring from the VP-X to the toggle switches is all the same low-power?it doesn't carry the devices' current, rather is used merely to tell the VP-X what device to turn on or off. That low-power switching could be done with a programmable controller so you could approach the functionality of the -200 with this separate gizmo.

[msturgis]

Originally Posted by Buggsy2

@Matt: as you can see in my previous posts here I was vocal in my lack of enthusiasm for the new products. If VP wants to get in the business of saving lives it's a noble cause. The problem for those of us who want some automation is the huge gap in their product line. The VP-X Pro is $1800 and provides electronic circuit breakers, wigwag, trim & flap motor control. The no-longer-sold -200 built on that with soft switches (so you didn't have a dozen toggle switches on your panel) and flight modes which was a great workload saver in flight.

The VP-300 doesn't build on that so I don't count it. Finally at $8000 you have the -400 which only promises it will do what the old -200 did, plus the "life-saver" Runway Seeker.

This is a huge jump in price to maybe get the genuinely useful work savings the -200 offered. It is this huge price gap that bothers many?not the new product's capabilities which are impressive. I retain my doubt about the marginal benefit/cost of Runway Seeker but that is quite separate from my concern about the price gap.

I am going to do some inquiries on my own about putting together my own gizmo as an addition to the VP-X. Consider that the wiring from the VP-X to the toggle switches is all the same low-power?it doesn't carry the devices' current, rather is used merely to tell the VP-X what device to turn on or off. That low-power switching could be done with a programmable controller so you could approach the functionality of the -200 with this separate gizmo.

No argument here... I too think keeping the -200 alive would be a smart move!

[MCA]

Originally Posted by msturgis

Someone mentioned that the VPX-400 might cause someone to over look a much more suitable landing site. I fully agree with this. Putting all your faith in one option, or one "layer" is not a good thing.

Matt -

We see the Runway Seeker as giving you another option in case of an emergency. Engage the Runway Seeker to get the plane stabilized and set up at best glide. If you want to go to a different airport than the one selected, you simply touch on the airport and select the runway. It will calculate a new glide path to the new runway instantly (or tell you there is no solution to that runway). If you want to land on a road or field down below, simply disconnect the autopilot or runway seeker and then fly it yourself (if the weather and type of emergency allows that).

[msturgis]

Originally Posted by MCA

Matt -

We see the Runway Seeker as giving you another option in case of an emergency. Engage the Runway Seeker to get the plane stabilized and set up at best glide. If you want to go to a different airport than the one selected, you simply touch on the airport and select the runway. It will calculate a new glide path to the new runway instantly (or tell you there is no solution to that runway). If you want to land on a road or field down below, simply disconnect the autopilot or runway seeker and then fly it yourself (if the weather and type of emergency allows that).

Thanks Marc. That's a great feature. I agree that this technology would be very useful being another layer of safety.

One question I had, if a pilot were to be solo an some how becomes incapacitated (I saw stars from hitting my head on my friends canopy awhile back) is there any foreseeable technology that would allow the system to take control and guide the plane in? Obviously I have not seen any RVs with auto throttles, but it's an interesting concept.

[Adam Wright]

I really like the idea of the VP200 it is a shame to discontinue it. The idea of separate control panel for soft keys/circuit breaks and EMS make important information and switches readily available with out having to go into EFIS menus as with the VPX.

The VP400 has some awesome tech in it. I can't even imagine the work that went into it. It is just the 400 is too much another EFIS and a very costly "back up EFIS" at that. The VP200 in my opinion is in another market and the 400 is no replacement. You should consider keeping both alive.

[rockwoodrv9]

Marc, I don't know enough about either the VP-200 or the VP-400 to have an opinion on how either works and if the 200 should be kept of not. I am a low time pilot who hasn't flown PIC in many years - way before glass anything. Im still a year out from needing to decide on what I am going to put in my panel.

What I do know is that I appreciate the fact that you are looking for new technology for our planes and ways to make flying safer. All you have to do is look at the numbers -general aviation and experimental aircraft in particular have a crappy safety record. Looking closer, it isn't always the low time pilots like me that are planting themselves into the ground. Many times the same type of pilot saying here they can fly the plane themselves in an emergency, don't always make it. To be fair - most do, both low time and the experts here do make the correct choices and are able to handle about anything that happens. Sometimes they don't and their names end up is the special thread we have on the forums.

I also appreciate the business risk you are taking - the aviation business is not the easiest place to make a buck. Your products need to make you a profit. Not seeing your books, I have no idea if the 200 is profitable or if your production capacities would allow you to still produce it. It appears to be very well received by RV'ers - but we are a small group. Maybe because there are so few of us, it would be possible to do limited runs for a few more years?

To me, your new 400 is a whole lot smarter than a BRS. After just mentioning the possibility of an autopilot system that could put the plane in its best glide-slope and find the nearest airport to my wife, she thought it was a great thing. Maybe some of the spouses, friends, and others, you may want to give a ride too would be a bit more relaxed knowing that if the pilot could not control the plane for whatever reason, at least they would have a chance.

Thanks, and if I still have any money left when I get to the panel, I will be looking hard at your system. I know there are those that don't want or think they would ever need the "extra" option - and you probably lost those customers. But I think you will get others if only to help them convince their wife or girlfriend to get in the plane. Good luck with the new model.

rockwood